sleeper;1613238 wrote:And someone who has an agenda that involves human suffering should be worshiped?

Well, that is the philosophy of the Old Testament, which can essentially be summed up as "God rules all. If you disobey him, horrible things will happen to you and you descendants. If you do anything he probably wouldn't like, you will suffer. If it simply isn't your lucky day, he'll spin the wheel and ruin your existence. If he gets pissed off enough, he'll just hit the 'reset' button on your entire society. And even if you obey and worship him, but he wants to win a bet, you're just flat out fucked."

And somehow, it all stuck. Probably because the ruling classes endorsed it because, shockingly, these divine words greatly mirrored how they treated the peasant classes and they could make a great analogy about how, no matter how much your life sucked, if you kept your mouth shut, worked hard and DID NOT DO ANYTHING to upset the status quo, you'd be rewarded in the afterlife. Because, after all, who cares about the day-to-day misery during your really finite natural life when you can walk with the angels after you've been put out of your misery?

jmog;1613007 wrote:Please display one logical or scientific proof that said instance was impossible? If not you are just back to illogical banter.

There is essentially nothing that can be ruled out at as impossible Jmog! It's possible that there is a tea cup floating between the earth and the Sun. It's possible that there is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent creator that started the universe. It's Possible that we are all in the Matrix. It's possible that the devil hid dinosaur bones and created radioactive decay to deceive empiricists into believing that the Earth is billions of years old so they would rot in hell when they rationally chose to reject Young Earth Derpationism. It's Possible that most Christians out there aren't actually desperate wishful thinkers who have to rationalize fairy tales and myths to be true so as to not render their whole lives meaningless because the Crucifixion never happened. It's Possible that an all powerful God could intervene and suspend the natural laws of physics and tell a drunk to build a ship and put Baby Dinosaurs on it with God making sure that they didn't kill all the humans. It's Possible that an all power God would manifest as a human and sacrifice himself for the sins of mankind and allow all people who have this belief attach to their cerebral cortex enter into a magical paradise after they suffer a complete brain death. It's Possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster that started the universe. It's Possible that we could have souls that somehow go marching on in a world beyond our understanding after we die.

BUT THERE IS NO GOOD, CONSISTENT, COHERENT OR JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO BELIEVE ANY OF THESE PROPOSITIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND

The rational conclusion is to apply the same reasoning to all of the other fantastical claims people have made...such as the claims that Muhammad ascended to Heaven after he fulfilled his role as the last prophet for an omni God.

It. Is. All. Bullshit.

And stop lecturing other people on this forum about logical fallacies in this thread when your whole worldview and everything you said in this thread are justified by appeals to ignorance. Saying "You can't prove it's not possible" is the quintessential appeal to ignorance. Literally everything you believe is grounded in logical fallacies and the rest of us are going to treat your blatant failure to realize this with contempt and derision.

Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven

Stop hoping for the fairy tale ending that will not every happen and get the most out of the wonderful gift of life and consciousness that you have been given by the miracle of evolution.

BoatShoes;1613566 wrote:
BUT THERE IS NO GOOD, CONSISTENT, COHERENT OR JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO BELIEVE ANY OF THESE PROPOSITIONS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AT HAND

The rational conclusion is to apply the same reasoning to all of the other fantastical claims people have made...such as the claims that Muhammad ascended to Heaven after he fulfilled his role as the last prophet for an omni God.

It. Is. All. Bullshit.

And stop lecturing other people on this forum about logical fallacies in this thread when your whole worldview and everything you said in this thread are justified by appeals to ignorance. Saying "You can't prove it's not possible" is the quintessential appeal to ignorance. Literally everything you believe is grounded in logical fallacies and the rest of us are going to treat your blatant failure to realize this with contempt and derision.

False.

Here, let me google that for you...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=logical+proof+of+god

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

I didn't read through the 3, just copy/pasted the first 3 different ones from a google search. I have read Godel's and Anselm's in the past however.

So once again, you are wrong. There has been logical/reasonable proofs/discussions about the existence of a god. Just because you fall in line with sleeper and believe that everyone who believes is a moron, doesn't make it true.

jmog;1613578 wrote:False.

Here, let me google that for you...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=logical+proof+of+god

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

I didn't read through the 3, just copy/pasted the first 3 different ones from a google search. I have read Godel's and Anselm's in the past however.

So once again, you are wrong. There has been logical/reasonable proofs/discussions about the existence of a god. Just because you fall in line with sleeper and believe that everyone who believes is a moron, doesn't make it true.

"of a god" not your god. Do you understand the difference? Do you also understand that none of the above links actually prove anything?

Seek professional medical help.

sleeper;1613583 wrote:"of a god" not your god. Do you understand the difference? Do you also understand that none of the above links actually prove anything?

Seek professional medical help.

Did I say it proved "my god"? No, so therefore you need to reread what I typed.

jmog;1613586 wrote:Did I say it proved "my god"? No, so therefore you need to reread what I typed.

I know what you posted. What does this have to do with Jesus Christ and the baby dinosaurs on the arc?

Again, do you understand that none of the links prove anything? Is there anyone on here denying a philosophical discussion on the existence of 'a god'? No, we are talking about the bullshit made up stories that permeate religious belief. Convenient you always try to move the goalposts whenever you are backed into a corner.

sleeper;1613589 wrote:I know what you posted. What does this have to do with Jesus Christ and the baby dinosaurs on the arc?

Again, do you understand that none of the links prove anything? Is there anyone on here denying a philosophical discussion on the existence of 'a god'? No, we are talking about the bullshit made up stories that permeate religious belief. Convenient you always try to move the goalposts whenever you are backed into a corner.

If anyone here keeps moving the goalposts it would be yourself and Boatshoes, but that is a whole different conversation on your discussion/debate techniques.

jmog;1613590 wrote:If anyone here keeps moving the goalposts it would be yourself and Boatshoes, but that is a whole different conversation on your discussion/debate techniques.

The thread title is religion. The main course of argument has been on specific stories of the bible. Somehow, you post links talking about a philosophical discussion on whether or not 'a god' could exist and pretend that its BS and I that are moving the goalposts of the discussion.

I mean you are either balls deep dense or completely delusional. Your choice.

jmog;1613578 wrote:False.

Here, let me google that for you...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=logical+proof+of+god

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/ontological.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/

I didn't read through the 3, just copy/pasted the first 3 different ones from a google search. I have read Godel's and Anselm's in the past however.

So once again, you are wrong. There has been logical/reasonable proofs/discussions about the existence of a god. Just because you fall in line with sleeper and believe that everyone who believes is a moron, doesn't make it true.

The ontological argument fails because existence is not a property and in any event it still collapses any discussion about the existence to God into fideism and there has never been a nonbeliever who was converted to theism by the ontological argument. Ontological proofs are the type of thing engaged in by true believers who want to ratify their wishful thinking...as you so evidently demonstrate.

In other words...ontological proofs and that type of philosophical investigation are very interesting and I'm sure a professor who devotes his life to such things is getting something out of life but they serve hardly any practical effect and in no way get us any closer to a justified, coherent belief in a creator God that we can count on. Not to mention that even if we accept the very broad conclusion of the ontological argument that a perfect being must exist otherwise he/it would not be a perfect being....we're so far away from a justified belief in a zombie hippie that died for the sins of man and a drunk carrying baby dinosaurs onto a ship that is utterly laughable that biblical literalists, christians and any other devotee of today's mainstream religions would even venture to bring it up.

At the very best...one of your completely indefensible beliefs....that there might be a totally perfect creator....can possibly be justified. That is all that you have.

The ontological argument fails because existence is not a property and in any event it still collapses any discussion about the existence to God into fideism and there has never been a nonbeliever who was converted to theism by the ontological argument. Ontological proofs are the type of thing engaged in by true believers who want to ratify their wishful thinking...as you so evidently demonstrate.

Maybe not JUST the ontological, but perhaps comi ones with the cosmological and teleological arguments, one could see validity in the evidence in the presented arguments. That's one of my points... something from nothing does not happen, which is why something outside of ourselves put us here.

Devils Advocate;1613141 wrote:40 days, 40 nights, and 6 months of food for the vegetation to regenerate? What about the carnivores? Did they survive on tofu?

The ontological argument fails because existence is not a property and in any event it still collapses any discussion about the existence to God into fideism and there has never been a nonbeliever who was converted to theism by the ontological argument. Ontological proofs are the type of thing engaged in by true believers who want to ratify their wishful thinking...as you so evidently demonstrate.

Who brings Kant into an argument and then fails to note that he BELIEVED in God? Since all believers are delusional and morons, Kant is a moron? So much for your 'defeat' of the ontological arguement using logic and reason unless of course you are willing to admit that not all believers are morons.

it still collapses any discussion about the existence to God into fideism

as it should be. Science, logic, and reason are not going to prove or disprove the existence of God.

HitsRus;1613818 wrote:Science, logic, and reason are not going to prove or disprove the existence of God.

lol.

^^^You think they will?

HitsRus;1613908 wrote:^^^You think they will?

They will certainly never prove a god because if they had we wouldn't be having this debate. "Disprove", I won't even address because its completely asinine that someone has to provide evidence of something NOT existing. No amount of logic, evidence, reason will even prove something doesn't exist; and no that does not mean your god exists.

Then you agree with me.

To believe or not to beleve is a matter of "faith" since neither can be proved.

Now I realize that you and others here feel that there is some merit, and have some fun in poking holes in fundamentalist Christian beliefs...just realize that this doesn't prove anything about the existence of 'god'...and for "God's" sake...quit making generalizations about all religions and presuppositions about what God should do or what he is like.

I've made the point on this thread several times that religion is not meant to be taken as a scientific treatise....it is a vehicle for finite people trying to wrap their heads around the infinite. It is simply a method of finding connection to their spirituality and the infinite in a very human way.

Now you can be an objectivist, and believe that nothing exists except what you can detect with your limited senses or limited reason or limited science....and that may be all that's relevant for you and your short span of life.
Or, you can postulate that there is more 'out there' than meets the eye, and that somehow we are a part of an infinite universe.

One way or another, it is a matter of belief.

If we are only evolved monkeys, then we cannot truly comprehend the nature of the infinite.
We don't know. We will never know, we CAN"T know.
In fact, the only way that we could EVER know for sure is if we are...or some piece of us is immortal itself.

In other words, if there is nothing out there to find... we shall not find it.
If there IS something, then theoretically, we eventually could find it and connect with it.

As I said earlier in this thread, science reveals, and religious people need not be afraid of it...and indeed MOST aren't.
Until such a time...the only way we can 'know' a divine presence is thru revelation. Religious people across the planet and across human existence feel there has been 'revelation'.

BELIEVE it...or NOT.

Mr. Tillman owned the bar. But the liquor he servd was provided by Brad Wesley.

God is hanging out in the cosmos with all the other gods.
God says, "I'm kind of bored."
This other god asks, "Why don't you go on vacation?"
God says, "I wouldn't know where to go..."
The other god asks, "How about Mars?"
God says, "Mars... Too red, cold, and dusty. Not really my thing."
The other god asks, "What about Venus?"
God says, "Venus... Acid rain, jagged rocks, very hot. Again, not my thing."
The other god asks, "Maybe you could visit Earth?"
God laughs and says, "Last time I visited Earth I got a girl pregnant and they're still talking about it."

Military atheists want a "Chaplain"....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/13/group-preparing-to-press-military-for-atheist-chaplain-source-says/

Devils Advocate;1615713 wrote:God is hanging out in the cosmos with all the other gods.
God says, "I'm kind of bored."
This other god asks, "Why don't you go on vacation?"
God says, "I wouldn't know where to go..."
The other god asks, "How about Mars?"
God says, "Mars... Too red, cold, and dusty. Not really my thing."
The other god asks, "What about Venus?"
God says, "Venus... Acid rain, jagged rocks, very hot. Again, not my thing."
The other god asks, "Maybe you could visit Earth?"
God laughs and says, "Last time I visited Earth I got a girl pregnant and they're still talking about it."

That is actually rather funny.

HitsRus;1613818 wrote:Who brings Kant into an argument and then fails to note that he BELIEVED in God? Since all believers are delusional and morons, Kant is a moron? So much for your 'defeat' of the ontological arguement using logic and reason unless of course you are willing to admit that not all believers are morons.



as it should be. Science, logic, and reason are not going to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Jeez. Whether Immanuel Kant believed in God or not has nothing to do with whether or not ontological proofs are justifiable foundations for a belief in God!

You said I suggested believers are morons. I never did. I've said that there is no justifiable foundation upon which one can rest an affirmative belief in a God. The best we can justifiably get to is fideism and that doesn't get us very far. I've even go so far as to say that if you want to believe in a creator...that's fine....but that there is little justification for any of the myths beyond believing in a creator. How do you get from Creator to Jesus and the mental state of belief in his resurrection leading to eternal bliss? Just talking about whether or not there is a creator is silly because most people who advance that argument believe the latter without ever having really done the work to get from A to B unless to they do it after the fact to feel better about a belief they were bequeathed by their parents.

I've never said anything close in this thread to suggesting that believers are morons. Desperate wishful thinkers yes but not morons. Indeed, I've even gone out of my way to point out how very, very smart people...smart people like Jmog....people way smarter than I could ever dream to be are often believers.

I've ridiculed Young Earth Creationism because it is beyond unjustifiable to completely indefensible, ludicrous drivel belied by the facts.

Belief in God has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with ratifying beliefs that have carved out the meaning of one's whole life. It is very difficult for a Christian to let go of Christian mythology because it has shaped much of one's whole life.

Please do better than this next time.

HitsRus;1614861 wrote:Then you agree with me.

To believe or not to beleve is a matter of "faith" since neither can be proved.

Now I realize that you and others here feel that there is some merit, and have some fun in poking holes in fundamentalist Christian beliefs...just realize that this doesn't prove anything about the existence of 'god'...and for "God's" sake...quit making generalizations about all religions and presuppositions about what God should do or what he is like.

I've made the point on this thread several times that religion is not meant to be taken as a scientific treatise....it is a vehicle for finite people trying to wrap their heads around the infinite. It is simply a method of finding connection to their spirituality and the infinite in a very human way.

Now you can be an objectivist, and believe that nothing exists except what you can detect with your limited senses or limited reason or limited science....and that may be all that's relevant for you and your short span of life.
Or, you can postulate that there is more 'out there' than meets the eye, and that somehow we are a part of an infinite universe.

One way or another, it is a matter of belief.

If we are only evolved monkeys, then we cannot truly comprehend the nature of the infinite.
We don't know. We will never know, we CAN"T know.
In fact, the only way that we could EVER know for sure is if we are...or some piece of us is immortal itself.

In other words, if there is nothing out there to find... we shall not find it.
If there IS something, then theoretically, we eventually could find it and connect with it.

As I said earlier in this thread, science reveals, and religious people need not be afraid of it...and indeed MOST aren't.
Until such a time...the only way we can 'know' a divine presence is thru revelation. Religious people across the planet and across human existence feel there has been 'revelation'.

BELIEVE it...or NOT.

This post is so out of sorts I cannot even derive its purpose.

Religion is 100% made up. If you want to talk about the possible existence of a 'god' then that's a discussion that has some merit even though I think its highly unlikely.