It seems that every time there is a debate over the existence of god, or the need for religion, theists seem to bring up the same (refuted) points over and over. I was thinking there must be some collection of arguments and rebuttals somewhere on the net? Could someone be kind enough to direct me to such a place?
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 13:35 ID:viCPxQ62
Angry internet atheists are FAGGOTS who couldn't debate a real theologian in a billion years, so no there's no faq like that.
Also, it helps to ask your opponent to define their concept of God (is he inside/outside our universe, omnipotent, omniscient, etc).
Or just laugh at them for being retarded.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 16:02 ID:BnqY10b8
who cares whether god exists or not
it's not as if it's important
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 16:08 ID:jf+xS7oT
>>4
you know what, you're actually right, i guess.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 17:52 ID:SZ0j6h32
God's existence can be argued with precisely the same arguments and principles that one uses to assert the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. I think that's very telling.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 20:38 ID:7rXcRdjp
Well, too start off, I can disprove an benevolent human like god.
1. Given:God is all knowing
If God was all knowing, then wouldn't he know the entire human course and not even bother to make us?
2. Given: God loves you
Love is a weakness
3. Given: God is outside of science and logic
Science and Logic are basically questions after questions, so you can't ask God if he exists, that seems pretty loophole
Yea, so as you can, all knowing and all powerful is bullshit
After that, its how you define a deity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 21:42 ID:q6GGXYpB
"love is a weakness?"
thats a (meaningless) saying, not a fact.
gb2 scientific method.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 21:44 ID:7rXcRdjp
>>8
love opens you up to the good things and the bad things about the thing you love
Love is an addiction to a hormone. You can buy injections of it nowadays (to keep your spouse loyal).
Weather or not it's a weakness is a matter of opinion.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 22:18 ID:JfJDcqta
Poster 7's arguments are fail and AIDS.
1. Why would you watch a movie if you knew what was going to happen in it already?
2. Love is not a weakness. Repression of emotion, however, is.
3. If you know it's spin, can you ask an electron where it's going to be at any given point? Sure. Can you actually know? No.
I'm not a theist, but illogical arguments gall me.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 22:26 ID:7rXcRdjp
>>11
1.Would you watch a movie if you know every second of it, every word, every image, and the whole movie right in your mind and you could see it all in infinitively small time would you still go watch it?
2. Stoicism
3. Electrons can be in two places at once, how does that apply, please use another example >>10
All emotions are addictions to proteins, thats why peoples personality can be explained in less than three words.
Whether its a weakness or strength is relative, emotions sometimes help you win and sometimes you lose.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-22 22:56 ID:p7g7osLA
If one were to make decisions based on love rather logic, it would create less than ideal results; therefore, love can cause weaknesses.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that people often have a need to "prove" the existence of God because: 1)They lack faith and don't realize/can't accept that(the bible states that you go "...by faith and not by sight...", and there are several other passages of similar nature). 2)Life and death can be scarey, uncertain, and unfair from time to time; Having someone or something you feel you can appeal to when things get like that can make things easier to accept or deal with. 3)People often need to feel validated in their existence, values, and actions; the religion/God they choose often reflects what they hold to be true or wish to be true. 4)Do you really wish to believe that you first ancestor was a piece of irradiated primordial slime that oozed out of the water, changed into something that slithered up a tree, changed into a barely sentient primate, and then finally changed into something like yourself? Many people have trouble just coming to terms with the existence of self and others, evolution's too much for them. It's much easier for them to believe some hyper-intelligent, hyper-powerful being popped into existence just because and created everything just because.
There are probably other things I could say on this, but I'd rather get some sleep now.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-23 2:56 ID:X+Tg69l9
THERE IS NO POINT HAVING A SERIOUS DEBATE ON 4CHAN.
GO FIND A REAL FORUM.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-23 5:56 ID:iHEw3GEt
>>13
Yea, maybe in that context, but in others the results could be different.
I personally think it's over rated and prefer to spend my time studying rather than trying to pick up chicks for sex (who really goes out looking for a serious relationship nowadays?). That's just me though, it's all a matter of what makes YOU happy.
What >>11 would do, and what God would do aren't the same. Besides, if you're eternal, why would you care about "saving time" by watching the movie in your head?
>>1
I used to have a great article bookmarked that listed all theistic claims and provided a great rebuttal for each one. I think it was on about.com. I'll see if I can find it.
In the meantime, here's a good index for arguing with creationists. It's long as fuck, and has pretty much anything a creationist could possibly say: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-23 21:22 ID:iHEw3GEt
>>18
No, I don't try because I don't want sex (I have had sex before, but I seem to have somehow lost my sex drive), nor do I want to invest the time into a serious relationship. Even if I wanted to, I don't get emotionally attached anymore (no crushes, or anything of the sort).
I find it impossible to believe in god unless you have been brainwashed at a low age.(parents forcing relegion) A law that I would propose is practice of religion or tricking a child (under 18)into religion is punishible by 1 year in prison and seperation from child. Its sick and disgusting when a poor little child is poisened with this trash, although this generation has less people who are religious it needs to stop. You cannot convert an adult or early formed mind into any belief. Kids are easily influenced and tricked. My law would end all scientific practices being denied by the public because of some old guy on a chair with a goofy hat.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-26 18:18 ID:DO9sOFCG
The whole argument is one-sided here. We're a collection of brainwashed theists and atheists beating a dead dog. The true believers' point of view is never represented in arguments like this. The main reason is that the true believers are mainly illiterate and live in the interweb-lacking regions of the south. I am sad for them. But I also feel superior, so karma stays balanced.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-26 19:12 ID:xopxkCE5
personally as some one with out religion being forced upon myself i think that religion is a good idea if you follow what your god says, jesus is god for us catholics so you should follow him and his teachings, how ever Mathew mark Luke and john are not god and have not been talk to by god. the stuff that is in those gospels is not the word of god. what the pope says is however the word of god for he is the vicar of christ
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-26 19:44 ID:/fYSJmwS
Wahahaha. Science is about as credible as religion. Theories aren't always proven. Your Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the origin of matter, just how it spread. I love it when atheists think they are smart just because scientific logic seems unprovable. I'd go on...but I'm too lazy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-26 21:14 ID:1ACS/53r
>>35
"Wahahaha. Science is about as credible as religion. Theories aren't always proven. Your Big Bang Theory doesn't explain the origin of matter, just how it spread. I love it when atheists think they are smart just because scientific logic seems unprovable. I'd go on...but I'm too stupid."
fixed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 0:54 ID:2EC7aeVP
theories are more then hypothesis. They are things that COULD of happened and are PHYSICALY possible to happen. Unlike God and Other ways are disproven by science. Why do people choose to believe stuff that was written back a long time ago. Jesus didnt mean for his religion to last this long. If he saw this world now he would wish that he changed it all. Religion is EXTREMELY outdated.
Name:
Pyrus2007-03-27 23:36 ID:VYOHiuSR
>>32
"I find it impossible to believe in god unless you have been brainwashed at a low age."
It seems to me that, barring the appearance of God or gods, someone or some group long ago, discovered(or developed) a belief in supernatural beings without prior “brainwashing”.
The difference I notice most between science and religion is that science requires “proofs” to validate an assertion, while religion requires “faith”: Science is show-and-tell, while religion is just-trust-me.
>>37
"Unlike God and Other ways are disproven by science. Why do people choose to believe stuff that was written back a long time ago."
As far as I can tell, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God(s). Supernatural beings supposedly exist and act in ways beyond natural, and science only talks about the natural. Science has little if anything to say about whether or not living things have a soul or what happens to it when living things die. As such, science certainly can’t say much about the possible existence of living beings that exist ONLY in soul form(God[s]).
Conversely, religion can’t discredit science because often requires(and has), some sort evidence or data or logic to back up much of what it asserts: experimental results, mathematical proofs, specimen samples, etc.
As for why people believe stuff: >>14
It seems my attempts at making links FAILED!! Curse my lack of computer savvy amoung other things.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-27 23:46 ID:cQCbak9m
>>38 It seems to me that, barring the appearance of God or gods, someone or some group long ago, discovered(or developed) a belief in supernatural beings without prior “brainwashing”.
You think they just happened to believe in it? Seems likely to me that a group with malicious intentions could have brainwashed a group of people to believe something they knew to be untrue as a tool to force them to do their bidding.
Name:
Pyrus2007-03-28 1:04 ID:KoGTGZ/1
Just trust me. When you wake up from my enduced hypnosis, 2+2 will equal 5, infinity will be a prime number and Relativity Theory will become The Law of Relativity. ;D
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-28 4:00 ID:mkjRBVas
god is superstition, nothing else.
Remember when Jesus made "miricles" due to the power of magic?
I dare your ass to do this same thing now and not be called a fucking moron...
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 10:08 ID:tiklUpgH
lulz its all a matter of opinion. anyway, no one can disprove or prove the existence of God, or gods for that matter.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 10:10 ID:tiklUpgH
still confused how evolution can go from a state of disorder to a state of order. seems to go against the law of thermodynamics if u ask me.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-29 10:19 ID:7hKdQVin
>>43
entropy of the universe always increases, so even though it may seem that organisms are getting more and more complex, or entropy is decreasing, the entropy of the universe is still increasing and does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
from a state of disorder to a state of order. seems to go against the law of thermodynamics
lawl
Do you believe the computer you're using has existed since the beginning of time? (And the house you live in, the clothes you're wearing, etc.)
Dont worry Heaven is startin trouble on alot of threads lol i think they are lonely and want a friend lol.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-30 15:44 ID:h1yBi0yA
Just because science doesn't prove something yet means god is responsible for everything >> just because your dog is black, my dog is white. There, direct correlation. Same goes for the other way >> Just because god isn't proven means god doesn't exist. Equally lame.
But which way is the correct path to take on the way to find out whether god exists? Faith or skeptism? I choose skeptism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-30 18:57 ID:qW4KlVIm
>Just because god isn't proven means god doesn't exist.
YES IT FUCKING DOES
gb2/Formal Logic 101, Onus of Proof
also 2/spelling - skepticism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 8:45 ID:f87Qg+x1
>Just because god isn't proven means god doesn't exist.
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T
Scientific Method, experimentation to test your hypothesis
There's no way to test for the existence of god
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 9:59 ID:Uv2vK+Rq
>>50
There is no current way to test for the existence of god just like there is no current way to test for string theory. Doesn't mean either doesn't exist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 10:00 ID:Uv2vK+Rq
>>50
Anyway, God can just appear in front of humans one day. That should be enough proof for anyone.
Name:
4tran2007-03-31 11:44 ID:3Bk4mrVM
>>52
How do you know it's not the devil/other malevolent divine entity/hallucination?
Name:
Anonymous2007-03-31 13:58 ID:dAhiVYhb
>>50
YES IT FUCKING DOES
FALSE UNTIL PROVEN TRUE
GO FUCK YOURSELF
>>50>>51
This is correct. I'm as atheist as the next guy, and I readily admit that we can't disprove the existence of a god.
People often accuse atheism of being a religion for this very reason. As far as I'm concerned, we can't disprove a god exists just as we can't disprove my cat created the universe ten minutes ago and implanted all our memories. These gods have no physical effect on the world, and so the point is entirely moot; a rose is a rose is a rose.
So when I call myself an atheist, these are simply not the gods I'm talking about.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-01 1:47 ID:AbJwTmiv
"I readily admit that we can't disprove the existence of a god."
"These gods have no physical effect on the world, and so the point is entirely moot"
thats agnostic not atheist
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-01 1:59 ID:Hzkp0HQs
>>57
No, it's not. I explicitly don't believe in gods who perform miracles, give us an afterlife, or even care about humans or recognize us as intelligent. I'm an atheist. But I'm telling you that gods that don't have a physical effect on the world are irrelevant; it's nonsense to even say whether you believe in them or not.
>>59
Atheist = 'I lack positive belief in any god or gods.'
Agnostic = Some pussy on-the-fence bullshit because they're afraid of the stigma of just rejecting it all. Often (though not always) a subset of atheists.
>>56
>I'm as atheist as the next guy, and I readily admit that we can't disprove the existence of a god.
That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. Luckily, all a negative needs to be true is the absence of any relevant true positives.
Also, 'atheist' is not an adjective.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-01 20:56 ID:Hzkp0HQs
>>61
Fail. We most certainly CAN KNOW whether the biblical god exists, because he's supposed to have created us, and he's supposed to perform miracles, respond to our prayers, etc. One good look at the world today is plenty enough to prove conclusively that he's not there.
These are the gods that agnosticism abstains from. As >>62 said, they're basically just afraid of being punished in the afterlife, so they say they don't know. They often term it to be unknowable to rationalize it; they're wrong.
Study after study has shown conclusively that prayer does fuck all to heal the sick. Study after study has shown conclusively that blessing food does fuck all for your health and prosperity (in fact, it often negatively affects you, because it makes you stupid). Study after study has shown conclusively that creationism is bullshit. Study after study has shown conclusively that we don't have free will; there is no existential consciousness.
He does not exist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-01 22:44 ID:AbJwTmiv
>>63
Because the concept of god only pertains to the bible? and we should base all of our spirituality off it? i don’t believe in any religion so does that make me atheist?
agnostic is not some middle road, in fact its more anti-religion then atheism could ever be. it does not mean im undecided, or that i don’t know. It’s more about abstaining from the question itself because sense experience will never verify it with a clear answer. The question “does god exist” hold no possibility of being true or false, it cannot be answered, any attempt to label it true or false will always be based off a leap of faith.
If you want to be atheist to certain applications of the concept of god that’s fine. Im atheist to the Christian god for instance, but im still agnostic to the concept itself.
Look at it this way
Example 1
“I have an infinity number of apples in my backyard”
obviously false, In application we can deduce a true or false statement while using the concept of infinity.
Example 2
“Infinity doesn’t exist”
Go ahead an try to pull a try or false answer from this, it cannot be done. Without application this concept has no true or false answer.
The leap of faith atheists must take is assuming the application of god is never true. The problem is that unlike the concept of infinity, the concept of god is extremely subjective. Its futile to try to deal with statements like the second example when the concept at hand is god. The application of god could work and deduce a true or false answer, but we don’t even understand the concept enough to be able to deal with it. The only reasonable approach is to leave it unanswered in conception, but subject to criticism in application but never linking the two.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-01 22:55 ID:vWq74cB2
I'm agnostic/atheist , the only god that I would even contemplate believing in is Nirguna Brahman, the formless, immaterial, ultimate reality.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-02 15:37 ID:6meHHEne
>>63
Good ideas, but insufficient proof - God is an ill-defined concept, and since none of those properties are fundamental to him, knocking them off does nothing to show he doesn't exist. The dearth of evidence is enough to let you say that, though.
>>64
Every physical thing in the universe exists in finite quantities, so... yeah, infinity doesn't. Also, 'an infinite number', not 'an infinity number'.
>>65
Then you'd be no better than the fundies. The universe does not change because you find aspects of it uncomfortable.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-02 19:54 ID:PoyYbKyC
>>66 Good ideas, but insufficient proof - God is an ill-defined concept, and since none of those properties are fundamental to him, knocking them off does nothing to show he doesn't exist. The dearth of evidence is enough to let you say that, though.
These examples were not to say anything about gods in general; it was just that, an example.
The point was that gods that have a physical effect on the universe are falsifiable, and so can be tested. Gods that don't are irrelevant.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-02 23:05 ID:6meHHEne
>>67
However, no particular effect on the universe is central to God's character, possibly excepting creating it, which can go any number of ways.
How do you do that barquote thing?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-02 23:54 ID:y2RXB5Do
>>66, you really believe that a personal belief and faith, that in no way affects you, is equivalent to being a fundamentalist? How can you justify that, and how can you claim to know the universe any better than anyone else?
On another note,
I recommend the book "Who Knows? A Study of Religious Consciousness" by Raymond Smullyan. A renowned mathematician and logician analyzing the concepts of god and afterlife, it is certainly worth a read.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 1:19 ID:o0YRUVmM
>>68 so simple that when you find out, you'll shit a brick
what is the seventh term in this sequence: >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>> hi, >>>>> hi,...
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 1:33 ID:1nXCneit
>>69
>you really believe that a personal belief and faith, that in no way affects you, is equivalent to being a fundamentalist? How can you justify that, and how can you claim to know the universe any better than anyone else?
I meant that in the sense of intellectual failure. Fundies do not necessarily blow themselves up or even make nuisances of themselves, but they do necessarily have massive fail at logicking.
>I recommend the book "Who Knows? A Study of Religious Consciousness" by Raymond Smullyan. A renowned mathematician and logician analyzing the concepts of god and afterlife, it is certainly worth a read.
You should know better than to be recommending books like that. Regardless, I, for one, can do my thinking for myself. If there are specific ideas from this person you want me to consider, please present them here.
>>68 However, no particular effect on the universe is central to God's character, possibly excepting creating it, which can go any number of ways.
This is my point. If a god created the universe, that's *not* a physical effect on the universe. It's not something that's testable, so it's not something that is even knowable.
To call yourself "agnostic" simply because you realize this painfully obvious fact makes you elitist and distracts from the real issue. That was my point throughout this entire discussion.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 2:39 ID:KRFe3mdO
>>72
Yes, remember the space, and also remember to not leave a blank line after the quote. It adds an extra blank line on its own.
(Not elitism... pussyism, and/or a refusal to make one's intuitions STFU and accept logical conclusions.)
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 6:03 ID:KRFe3mdO
>>75 So the Big Bang is also unfalsifiable, then?
What the fuck? The Big Bang is not unfalsifiable, shithead. Here, acquaint yourself with COBE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE
The graph is data from the COBE mission, which looked at the background microwave glow of the universe and found that it fit perfectly with the idea that the universe used to be really hot everywhere. This strongly reinforced the Big Bang theory and was one of the most dramatic examples of an experiment agreeing with a theory in history -- the data points fit perfectly, with error bars too small to draw on the graph. It's one of the most triumphant scientific results in history.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 6:08 ID:KRFe3mdO
>>75 (Not elitism... pussyism, and/or a refusal to make one's intuitions STFU and accept logical conclusions.)
That depends. Some so-called agnostics simply refrain from the discussion on whether the biblical god (or other human deities exist). These are the pussies who are worried about the banhammer in the afterlife.
Some agnostics are smart enough to realize this is nonsense, but they also realize that deities that don't affect the universe are unfalsifiable. So they think they're all smart by calling it unknowable. These are the elitist ones; they think they're smarter than atheists because of it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 9:11 ID:QOOgeWxi
Before anything I'm going to say that I did not read the thread, nor do I intend to.
>>75
The Big Bang is not "unfalsifiable" so to speak. The facts it is based on on the other are (eg. >>76). There are some alternative theories to the 'Big Bang'. The most prominent one is probably the 'Big Bounce' talked about in string theory. In the mathematics of String Theory it is found that when space is squeezed to some level beyond the planck length it acts the same as if it's stretching (A space with three spatial dimensions 1/100 of the planck length has the exact same pysical properties as a space 100 times bigger than the planck length). Because of this we cannot know for sure weather our world is bigger than the planck length or smaller. This leads one to the obvious conclusion that before the 'Big Bang' the world was bigger than the planck length and getting smaller, causing it to expand once again after crossing this boundrary (hence the term 'Big Bounce'). This theory holds up in string theory much better than the 'Big Bang' does. Unfortunately it is still dependant on string theory which hasn't had much experimental supporting evidence (most experiments concieved to date cannot be run due to physical requirements (eg. the size of a particle accelerator required, the amount of energy required, the sensitivity of the sensors required, etc...). Either way, unless you're working in working on developing string theory there is really no reason to research it as it's not very applicable (unless you're just a lover of knowledge). To reitterate the point I was making the Big Bang is a theory that explains the observed facts reasonably well based on current well supported scientific theory. A better theory may come along at any moment.
note: I should say that in the above I'm not entirely sure if it's the planck length, or just another length near it (or even if it refers to the circumference of the dimensions of the diameter). I haven't looked at string theory in 3-4 years.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 9:23 ID:pNAJR45Q
ITT, RETARDS.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 9:30 ID:jFvN4NaU
ITT laymen discuss important things
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 9:31 ID:KRFe3mdO
>>78 The most prominent one is probably the 'Big Bounce' talked about in string theory.
This is not an alternative theory to the Big Bang; it is a larger theory that comprises Big Bang. If Big Bounce is correct, Big Bang is also correct.
Also, a) Big Bounce has very little to do with string theory, and b) Big Bounce is almost certainly wrong, since as WMAP has shown, the universe is spatially flat and so will not collapse on itself.
Because of this we cannot know for sure weather our world is bigger than the planck length or smaller.
This is nonsense. There is no absolute scale of larger or smaller in string theory just as there is no preferred frame in relativity. It makes no physical difference which way you choose in calculations; pick one.
To reitterate the point I was making the Big Bang is a theory that explains the observed facts reasonably well based on current well supported scientific theory. A better theory may come along at any moment.
Of course. This happens all the time in science; for example Newton's laws of Gravity were replaced with General Relativity at high energy scales. This doesn't mean Newton was wrong; it just means General Relativity has a larger scope of applicability than Newtonian gravity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-03 19:48 ID:1nXCneit
>>76
ITT we fail to recognize reductio ad absurdum arguments when we see them.
>>78 Before anything I'm going to say that I did not read the thread, nor do I intend to.
Maybe you should have - if you had, you'd know that you wasted the time to write a big post that isn't directly relevant to the topic at hand.
>>81
Who cares? The point is, I think we can agree that the Big Bang is falsifiable. Yes?
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-04 0:47 ID:EmEHgbfX
Big Gang Bang vs Big Titty Bounce
Name:
4tran2007-04-08 4:55 ID:FH1Ak2WE
>>67 The point was that gods that have a physical effect on the universe are falsifiable, and so can be tested. Gods that don't are irrelevant.
What if their physical effects cannot be proven to be their activity? If God (randomly or otherwise) chooses to smite your friend with a lightning bolt, you'd never know it was random chance/divine action. In this case he has a definite physical effect, but we still can't prove/disprove his existance.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 11:15 ID:KfNNeI22
>>84
Yes, we can, lots of ways. First off, if God would smite your friend specifically, then given the relatively low number of people who get hit by lightning bolts compared to the number of people who do things generally considered to be morally wrong, he'd have had a pretty good reason to smite your friend. You'd be able to take a survey over a large number of people who get hit by lightning every year and see a pattern in the actions they've been doing to see what pisses off God.
Second, we know what causes lightning; friction in air molecules causes electrostatic buildup in clouds. Pretty soon we'll be getting better and better technologically at detecting where lightning strikes will occur based on things like air density. We'd be able to detect this deity by seeing a sudden impossible shift in air conditions causing a lightning strike to hit a specific person (or simply averaged over many people, we'd see stranger behavior in air conditions when people are hit compared to inanimate objects).
Third, we know how people are made vulnerable to lightning. It's not logical for God to only smite people who go golfing on stormy days, or who stand around in open fields. People usually stay indoors during a storm, and especially in big cities, there's virtually always another target for lightning to strike. I'd have a hard time calling it a deity if it can be thwarted so easily; call me when lightning bolts start shooting through windows to hit child molesters.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-08 12:10 ID:wKWfFHe+
God is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe, the galaxy rotation 'problem', and the Pioneer anomaly.
>>85
To summarize:
Paragraph 1: Assumption that this god is logical in who he smites, and that he is not smart enough to do so sparingly enough to avoid detection.
Paragraph 2: Assumption that a god who can control nature would, for some completely insane reason, choose to do something glaringly physically impossible rather than make extremely subtle changes that lead to the same result.
Paragraph 3: Houses get hit by lightning (and start on fire as a result) not infrequently. It happened to my neighbor's house twice in one year.
As >>87 pointed out, if the act is adequately rare, you can't determine anything. My original thought experiment consisted of God using lightning to kill your friend once, after which he subsequently never appears again.
We all know how lightning works, but it doesn't prevent God from mucking around with a few moles of electrons.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-09 18:00 ID:vr6xidkF
>>87>>89 Paragraph 1: Assumption that this god is logical in who he smites, and that he is not smart enough to do so sparingly enough to avoid detection. Paragraph 2: Assumption that a god who can control nature would, for some completely insane reason, choose to do something glaringly physically impossible rather than make extremely subtle changes that lead to the same result. As >>87 pointed out, if the act is adequately rare, you can't determine anything. My original thought experiment consisted of God using lightning to kill your friend once, after which he subsequently never appears again.
All of these are the same ludicrous argument told time and time again: "God works in mysterious ways." The very process of shutting off your brain and submitting to religion.
Why are you thinking of our technology as static, as though we won't be able to improve it? Eventually it's conceivable that we'll be able to predict weather patterns completely; that we'll have a full and complete knowledge of the movement of air so as to predict lightning years in advance. What then? Will God simply stop using lightning to smite us?
Think about how your painfully stupid argument applies to prayer. People pray all the time to heal the sick, thinking they're helping. Scientists have done experiments where they observe, say, a thousand sick people; friends, family, relatives, entire congregations and communities pray for half of those that are sick. The other half go unmentioned. In all cases, there is always found to be no correlation whatsoever with prayer and recovery.
The logical conclusion would be to say that prayer has no effect. Right? Now think about what you're saying. Think about what your argument is here. You're literally saying that God explicitly chose to avoid helping those people for the sole purpose of confounding scientists. He'd have normally helped many of these highly religious people; yet he let many of them suffer and die just to fool a few meddling scholars, doing nothing more than seeking knowledge.
The utter, staggering idiocy of this argument boggles the mind. I can't even fathom how a person can believe such lunacy. If you honestly think this is what your God does, then how on earth can you possibly respect him?
>>90
"Eventually it's conceivable that we'll be able to predict weather patterns completely"
No, it isn't. Learn a little bit about chaos theory and you'll know that given any finite amount of information about the current state of weather, our predictions for the future can (and will) still be wildly inaccurate.
"What then? Will God simply stop using lightning to smite us?"
You are the only one here who seems to think that a hypothetical god could use lightning and only lightning to smite people. Why not house fires? Heart attacks?
"You're literally saying that God explicitly chose to avoid helping those people for the sole purpose of confounding scientists."
You're assuming that god cares about helping people in the exact same way that you do. Anthropomorphization does not justify an argument just because you really really want it to.
"The utter, staggering idiocy of this argument boggles the mind. I can't even fathom how a person can believe such lunacy. If you honestly think this is what your God does, then how on earth can you possibly respect him?"
Where, in my post, did I say I respect god? Or that I believe in him? (Note: I'm the author of >>87) I'm not defending the idea that god does exist, I'm calling you out on your babbling idiocy about a disproof of god.
Name:
Anonymous2007-04-12 6:32 ID:qBkEsN4V
You guys should try playing oblivion, I havent played it yet but it looks real cool. Its an RPG and it has a huge area to explore so sounds real fun and time consuming. Who knows where to get it cheap?
>>94
why read through 92 illogical, slanderous replies? why even read 19 of them? my time is better spent reading the simple, logical rebuttals to the main creationist claims in the list i gave. i'm in no way ashamed of reposting a link to something that fits the op's request perfectly.
>>91
>Learn a little bit about chaos theory and you'll know that given any finite amount of information about the current state of weather, our predictions for the future can (and will) still be wildly inaccurate.
I don't believe this. There is a finite amount of information in the universe.