So that's it for the election.

[Ravager]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

I've designed an experiment that will prove it. It's called the stand in front of a bullet train while eating rat poison experiment. Do this, and you will see first hand that there is no god, except the catch 22 is that you won't know it, because you'll be dead. I'll save you all the big mystery of death, it's nothing. It's unconsciousness. It's nothing to fear, because when it happens, you won't know it and there's no knowing you don't know it. It's exactly what it was for you before you were born, only it's after you die. If you've ever been put under for surgery, that's exactly what death is like, except you don't wake up from it.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There could be a teapot orbitting the sun on the opposite side from Earth. There is nothing rational about arbitrarily believing that it is so.

The God rationale:

I don't know what happened before I existed.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've designed an experiment that will prove it. It's called the stand in front of a bullet train while eating rat poison experiment. Do this, and you will see first hand that there is no god, except the catch 22 is that you won't know it, because you'll be dead. I'll save you all the big mystery of death, it's nothing. It's unconsciousness. It's nothing to fear, because when it happens, you won't know it and there's no knowing you don't know it. It's exactly what it was for you before you were born, only it's after you die. If you've ever been put under for surgery, that's exactly what death is like, except you don't wake up from it.

Praise the primordial ooze, Ravager of P99 not only knows what happens after death but also before birth. Booger-eaters around the globe rejoice.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science ventures into the unknown, but it does not make negative propositions based upon lack of evidence. It makes propositions and tests those propositions. But it does not state that if a proposition is untestable, then it must be false. It makes no claims under such conditions.

And agnostics believe the divine is unknowable based upon current knowledge. We still have billions of years of evolution/discovery ahead of us. There may be a few, but not many, agnostics who believe that the divine will be forever unknowable. Most simply believe that we don't understand the divine based upon our current knowledge, but that this knowledge is not unattainable ever.

Of course, the definition of divine is not a constant. If we found that a certain entity had created this universe for his own purposes, and had complete control over this universe, we would consider him divine. But perhaps in his realm, his reality, he is subject to certain physical laws and is limited in power. Could it not be possible that he was created by some other entity?

Can you not read? I never said science said god doesn't exist, I said there is no evidence of god therefore no reason to believe that god does exist.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

Saying something isnt a matter for debate, doesn't make it true.


sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alarti, if I were you I would stop arguing with Orruar, because you haven't won too many rounds so far [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] He's exactly right here. There are basically 3 kinds of empirical statements:

* Statements which can be proven wrong (i.e. the sun is blue)
* Statements which have not yet been proven wrong but can be (most of what we consider science)
* Statements which cannot be proven wrong (i.e. God)

There is no experiment you can design that will disprove the existence of God. It's purely a matter of faith or not. Or, to requote Pauli, it's not even right or wrong, just unproveable. And religions are usually designed to make it so.

winning? I am right in every case, whether or not you think i scored e-points matters very little to me.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Saying something isnt a matter for debate, doesn't make it true.


sorry [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Will you please let the adults talk? You're functionally illiterate. Your own guild is embarrassed of you.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Will you please let the adults talk? You're functionally illiterate. Your own guild is embarrassed of you.

What can't come up with a logical defense?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

Oh also,

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-blocks-...oung-star.html

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know what kind of abuse you've suffered at the hands of the religious that has resulted in your hostility toward the notion of a god, but it's thoroughly irrational.

Mankind has thousands of concrete examples of life being recreated by other living organisms. We have exactly zero examples of inorganic matter transforming into organic polymers that would constitute even the most simplistic notion of life. If a proto-organic life form must have existed, there is absolutely no explanation given by modern science. In other words, believing an organic polymer spontaneously generated and methodically developed into Earth's living population is backed by exactly the same amount of science as believing that an alien, deity, or other advanced organic life form initiated the process of life on Earth -- and perhaps throughout the universe. Read: none.

At any rate, your arrogance is absurd. You have reduced the beliefs of the vast majority of the planet, including minds far greater than your own, to "giant daddy in the sky". I don't understand how such small people go through life believing they are so superior to others. Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god, and yet Alawen of P99 knows better.

A rational person would be content to know that he doesn't know, and neither does anyone else. A rational person would be able to admit that a creator could serve as a rational explanation for the origins of the universe. A rational person could acknowledge the historical existence of Jesus. These aren't matters of debate.

Presidents, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have gone through their lives believing in a god.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

Perfectly rational.
Except for fallacious appeal to authority and argument ad populum.

I'm going to try to explain fallacious appeal to authority to you, because it's a serious stumbling block in your debate style. Consider this argument:

Oprah is a successful businesswoman and world-renown personality.
Oprah says my car trouble is a dead battery.
Therefore, I should have my battery checked.

Do you see the problem there? Despite her well-known intelligence and skills, Oprah is not an expert in car repair. Let's continue with a fuzzier case.

I'm not feeling well.
Dr. Oz says I should eat more superfoods.
Therefore, improving my diet will cure my feelings of malaise.

Dr. Oz is a real M.D. and he might even be able to diagnose what ails me, but he hasn't examined me. He's just giving generalized advice on a television program. His expertise has not been applied to my situation.

You like to imply that there is a host of impressive people who are devout Christians. You gloss over listing them by name, of course, which makes that argument hearsay. However, even if you were to list them by name, they are not experts on the existence or non-existence of one or more deities.

This brings us to the real crux of the matter here. Can we safely agree that it is impossible to prove the existence of a Judeo-Christian-Muslim supreme being given the evidence at hand? Can we also safely agree to extend that beyond those limits and say that it is impossible to prove the existence of any deity given the evidence at hand? I do hope so, but there are plenty of whackadoos who love this argument:

The human eye is complex.
Therefore, giant daddy in the sky.

If, however, we can agree that no one can prove the existence of a deity, I'd like to continue. It is a tenet of both science and law that a negative cannot be proven. Indeed; attempting to assert the truth of a statement based on failure to disprove it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

Still with me? Great. So here's where we're at:

It is not possible to prove the existence of God.
It is not possible to disprove the existence of God.

With these two premises, pray tell me: what field of study qualifies one as an expert on the existence of non-existence of God? You can continue to trot out your implied lists of such experts using life accomplishments in science or politics or academics, but it will continue to be a flawed statistical syllogism. Perhaps that's how you choose to make decisions, by basing your life decisions on the opinions of people you respect. That might even be effective depending on your own cognitive abilities. Unfortunately for your entire argument about reasoning and rational decisions, following others is not logic.

To be logical, to be rational, one must be capable of individually observing and considering evidence, forming and connecting coherent concepts, and reaching independent conclusions. Following the crowd is exactly the fundamental behavior that I scoff at in religion and politics, among other things. It reduces the magnificence of human potential to that of the notorious rodent, the lemming, or the more contemporary colloquialism, sheeple. Yes, I am essentially a humanist.

On a final note, it is also important for a rational mind to accept new evidence, even if such evidence disproves earlier conclusions. Of course I can be wrong about things; I'm human, too. I am constantly learning and thinking about things I have limited knowledge in. I am wrong about things every day. It's not my job to tell you that I could be wrong. That's a given, and self-confidence in my own knowledge and intellect is not a character flaw.