[The Phlegmy One!111]

Uh yeh, that's what I was saying. If god is inifnite and you said inifinite things are illogical, god is illogical. :-S

[HolteEnder]

Sorry. Misread it

God is potentially infinite.

[Automatic Man]

That's good, so you admit to a flaw in your religion.

I don't really care about who/what made the universe, I wasn't there and I'm never gonna be there when it happened. It happened millions and millions of years ago and as far as I'm concerned has little or no relevance to now. Neither does the Bible or any other holy book, I can give myself restrictions if I wan't to and I'm perfectly capable of understanding that it probably isn't 'right' for me to go up to the guy next to me and kill him.

For the 'creation of the world' thing, I'm more inclined to believe in some kind of Matrix. But I can't be bothered thinking about it. I don't believe there is any force controling the Earth at the moment, whether there was or not before dosen't bother me.

Sergeant Howie: And what of the true god, whose glory, churches and monasteries have been built on these islands for generations past? Now sir, what of him?
Lord Summerisle: He's dead. Can't complain, had his chance and in modern parlance, blew it.

If there was a force that created the world, which there is nothing to show, there's also nothing to show their still 'alive'.

[HolteEnder]

i don't have a specific religion. I wouldn't say i was Christian, Muslim or Mormon. I believe in God.

I don't think that Religion has all the answers, far from it, but it makes sense to me.

[The Phlegmy One!111]

What the hell does god is potentially infinite mean? He either is or he isn't. If you mean he can be, then he can be something illogical, and therefore doesn't exist.

[Automatic Man]

Okay, as for my God, it's me, and I obviously didn't create the Earth.

[HolteEnder]

A potential infinite exists if it is possible to add one more to a series of things or events.

[Automatic Man]

Yeah.

But that hardly works with the God thing.

[Forgone Conclusion]

I just thought we were just gonne be posting links that in some way or another insulted Christians

I honestly cba with another existence of god argument, becuase it always ends the same way, cos neither side can prove it - those who don't believe can't win because it's impossible to prove the non-existance of something, and believers can never win because they are wrong, so the srgument just goes back and forth, round and round, until an arab blows up a woman for not covering her face, the Christians go on a crusade against the infidels, and the Buddhists look on knowingly, silently thinking to themselves what a bunch of morons all these people are.

[Droogie]

well, to be fair (to me) i made an argument (that noone contested) that although it can't be proved either way, its irrational to believe in god. and while noone argues against that, i'll consider myself the winner.

(yay)

[Gabriel Synthesis]

tommy you're wrong

[Automatic Man]

*sighs*
*gives knowing look*
*gives confused look*
*wonders what the fuck i'm on about*
*stops*

[The Phlegmy One!111]

And to be fair, the Buddhists have about 2% the amount of stupid ideas most of the others have, which actually amounts to a lot.

[Echoes]

HolteEnder, on Jun 22 2006, 01:42 PM, said:

Actual infinity is illogical because the actual infinite numbers cannot exist. Because whether you subtract or add to an actual infinite number it will always remain the same number. Infinity. An actual infinite wll always be complete. Thats why its illogical.

loops and cycles are 'infinite' and yet are not 'illogical'. We might approximate intervals of time to be discrete units, e.g. seconds, but in fact you can keep dividing a second into smaller and smaller pieces - INFINITELY! Now, for what you said to be true - nothing can really be infinite, that either would mean that
a) there is a basic unit/'parcel' of time, that you can't actually divide into smaller bits of time
time, as perceived by the brain, doesn't exist

also, the argument you just gave uses the wrong (albeit classical) perception of time, as a sequence of events, whereas it's not, really. It's a fourth dimension, that certainly isn't fixed - for example someone travelling at the speed of light experiences time more slowly than people on Earth, so if you were to rocket off and come back in what your watch told you was 10 years' time, everyone else might (for example) be 50 years older. since it's just a dimension, it doesn't need to have a start, or an end; like the x axis on a chart. You can define where you are on that axis compared to another point (usually 0), but you can keep going in either direction for as long as you bloody well like... even if time doesn't loop around on itself, why should the 'time' axis NOT be infinite? Why can there not have been an infinite 'sequence' of events?

Which all brings us back to square zero. this thread shows how arguing over physical/metaphysical basis of god's existence tends to go. A religious person points at a relatively basic physical event, like an apple existing, and says - oh look, it's there, that must be god that put it there. Then some smartarse biologists points out that it grew on the tree. The religious person goes 'ok, so God put the tree there' - which, of course, is in fact the result of seeds growing etc. eventually you move to biochemistry, then chemistry, then the physics that move chemistry. The Big Bang - must be God's work! no no, some physicist will one day say, it's just the birth of a universe 'bubble' from a universe 'stew'. And so on, ad nauseam.

The scientist can only explore things like evolution, physics, and so on, and show that it's not God that's working, it's just a set of scientific laws; he can't prove God didn't set it all up to be that way. He can just keep proving God isn't directly involved in bits of life around you, like wiping the condensation off a fogged-up window. The religious man can't, however, prove that God exists; every time the boundaries of human knowledge are pushed back a little further, he can just say 'God is what is beyond those boundaries, and he made everything inside them'

Neither side has proof! That's why I prefer to say i have no proof of God's existence or non-existence, and I'm not going to believe either until shown proof. And since both sides accept that God, if he were to exist, would be way way way beyond the human brain's ability to understand (i.e. we probably couldn't spot It even if It was in front of our eyes), there will never be proof. Which is why, despite everyone on either side of the debate claiming to use logic, only the agnostic position is logical, not religion, not atheism. Those last two are both belief systems, and both equally deserving of ridicule - it's just that one has far more TV-worthy fairytales to 'explain', so is easier to be intellectually snobbish against

[Droogie]

i agree with everything you said there phil, but even though one definitely can't prove the (non-)existence of god, surely you can still have an opinion? for example i'm an atheist because i believe god doesnt exist, even though i know that it can't be proved.

[HolteEnder]

Good post.

You people have inspired me to start studying more books in preparation for October, cos Im so not ready. :X

[Forgone Conclusion]

The thing is that the ressure shouldn't be on people to prove something doesn't exist, it should be on people toprove that it does - that's the way thse things work

[The Phlegmy One!111]

Agree with Tommy and Curtis. I don't actually think a god exists, and live my life as if he doesn't. I acknowledge that there is a chance of him existing. It's like thinking Brazil will win the World Cup, sure there's a chance another team will one (pretty good chance) but doesn't mean you can't think that the chance of Brazil winning is more likely. As Curtis said, it's upto the person proving soemthing exists to bring the proof to the table. If you take teh agnostic viewpoint, then you're also unsure if pink versions of dildocorns live in the closest galaxy because you're too indecisive to make a choice based on chances.

[Echoes]

Forgone Conclusion, on Jun 23 2006, 02:23 PM, said:

The thing is that the ressure shouldn't be on people to prove something doesn't exist, it should be on people toprove that it does - that's the way thse things work

so you reject Gravity, is that it?

[Gabriel Synthesis]

what the fuck is gravity? did you just make it up?