Deity Existence - Page 42

Jikanu · 05-01-2009, 10:57 PM

Not all religious people are like that... as i said in my first post in this thread, we all have about the same chance of being right.

Plus, there's the theory of Universal Salvation...

**Hraesvelg** · 05-01-2009, 11:02 PM

See, that is where you are absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly wrong. There is NOT the same chance either is right. There is a chance, yes, but not nearly the same. With every piece of evidence and observation gathered, the probability tilts in the favor of there not being a supernatural creator-being, seeing as there isn't ANY actual repeatable observation and evidence that one does exist.

Jikanu · 05-01-2009, 11:03 PM

But once again, you can say that the Deity that created us used science and stuff. there's been nothing that makes him/her/it any less likely of existing.

**Hraesvelg** · 05-01-2009, 11:07 PM

You could say he lives in your shoe, too, but that doesn't make it any more valid or true.

Jikanu · 05-01-2009, 11:28 PM

Same with string theory. there's no proof of it, but it fits in perfectly with our current knowlege of things, as does God. he explains what logic simply can't, such as the previously mentioned big bang.

And dont bring up eclipses, because those things still worked inside of physical rules.

**Hraesvelg** · 05-01-2009, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

as does God.

Fits perfectly? That must be a jest, correct? Which version of "God" fits things perfectly? The Orthodox Jews'? The Reformed Jews'? The Catholics'? The Protestants' (Baptists', Pentecostals', Unitarians')? The Shias'? The Sunnis'? We're just barely scratching the surface of the various groups of the Abrahamic religions, there, and none of those fit in "perfectly" with anything we currently observe about the universe. It might have fit "perfectly" in with the observations of a desert dweller 4000 years ago, but not any more.

Edit: Quantum theory doesn't fit "perfectly" either, but that is to be expected, as humans are in fact NOT divine creature and are prone to flaws. It is currently the best model out there, not the final one.

Jikanu · 05-02-2009, 12:19 AM

I mean just a deity in general... not a specific one.

**Vasu** · 05-02-2009, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Jikanu

I agree that religion shouldnt be used for hate, but the punishment comes in the afterlife, not in this one, and it's not correctness, but intent that matters. most laws are just against things that almost all people would consider morally wrong, like rape, murder, theft, etc... not how to hold your fork or something menial like that.

But Christianity is chock full of hate. Do you worship Baal? Yes? *stab* Do you not believe in our merciful, all loving god? No? *burn*

And the worst part is that all of these were done with the express support of GOD.

God explains what we cannot explain, true. But he then asks of us an even bigger explanation for his existence. Hypothesising a god only creates an infinite regression. It does NOT end it. You can claim god is "non-physical" and omnipotent and whatnot but you do not have a definition for "non-physical" and as we have shown, absolute omnipotence is impossible.

On the other hand, let me state here, that simply hypothesising a deity is far more understandable than hypothesising one prescribed by religion.

Jikanu · 05-02-2009, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Vasu

But Christianity is chock full of hate. Do you worship Baal? Yes? *stab* Do you not believe in our merciful, all loving god? No? *burn*

And the worst part is that all of these were done with the express support of GOD.

God explains what we cannot explain, true. But he then asks of us an even bigger explanation for his existence. Hypothesising a god only creates an infinite regression. It does NOT end it. You can claim god is "non-physical" and omnipotent and whatnot but you do not have a definition for "non-physical" and as we have shown, absolute omnipotence is impossible.

On the other hand, let me state here, that simply hypothesising a deity is far more understandable than hypothesising one prescribed by religion.

I agree that alot of what the church did in the past was wrong. but what about the good things we've done, such as the works of Mother Theresa?

And you claim that nothingness exploded, which is also impossible. i'll explain mine when you explain yours.

**Hraesvelg** · 05-02-2009, 05:51 AM

I'm not entirely sure you want to go down the Mother Teresa route, heh.