Permabanned
Religion is like an interstellar game of Ripley's believe it or not.
Existence of God disproved!
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
Soldato
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/faith
"Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof:"
Some words have more than one meaning. Not surprised you didn't know this given your past form. Or maybe you do know but are just denying it because you're desperate to win an argument you can not win.
Soldato
The best way to win this game is to not believe Ripley's until you have sufficient evidence.
You said it isn't synonymous with trust...
It is and that's a fact. You're now arguing against something I never said. One of your other fortes.
Incidentally you make a statement that words have multiple meanings, yet you are blanking the meaning that is not convenient to your argument.
Inconsistency, another one of your fortes.
Soldato
I'm going to stop talking to you now because I think you are trolling me. Nobody could be this genuinely absurd. I leave my remarks at the whim of the audience who read these posts, not you.
This is your classic finish when you're talking rubbish about something that you can't actually back up. You are so transparent.
There is not even the smallest piece of evidence or logic that points towards the existence of any god or deity. There isn't even an explanation that makes sense.
The whole argument in favour of there being a god falls apart very rapidly when you ask certain questions. I can competely destroy it with one question - how did god come into existence?
It is obvious by analysing the application of religion and how it has changed over the centuries that it is simply a tool that has been used to manipulate the masses in an attempt to keep them in line (keep them working, stop them from committing crimes), and as a means for those in power to retain that power (for example the divine right of kings).
The whole argument in favour of there being a god falls apart very rapidly when you ask certain questions. I can competely destroy it with one question - how did god come into existence?
It is obvious by analysing the application of religion and how it has changed over the centuries that it is simply a tool that has been used to manipulate the masses in an attempt to keep them in line (keep them working, stop them from committing crimes), and as a means for those in power to retain that power (for example the divine right of kings).
The simple answer is, He didn't. God is transcendent of normal human or universal experience therefore the question you so confidently says destroys the idea of God is redundant and so doesn't destroy the idea at all, but only underlines it.
Asking how god came in to existence doesn't destroy the argument in favour of a god.
Also, are you aware that the notion of a higher being isn't completely dependent on religion, and whether a "god" exists or not doesn't change just on the basis of being able to disprove religions.
This is a really low quality argument that shows a lack of understanding of how arguments work. Based on the logic you've used, lack of knowledge destroys an argument for something related.
Ergo, the theory of how the universe came to exist is "destroyed" if you ask the question "what came before the big bang?" which is just an absurd notion.
Evolution does not disprove god(s) exist in the slightest. Science does not declare alternate hypothesis false just because there is a simpler theory, it declares then unnecessary, which isn't the same thing.
With regards to the second point, at what point have I mentioned the Abraham God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam?
your posts require that kind of leap of faith with regards to the a priori assumptions of the scientific method. You can't believe in scientific realism without faith.
Associate
God disproves himself.
EDIT: or herself. Forgetting, sexism is bad.
EDIT: or herself. Forgetting, sexism is bad.
TOSH again of the highest order of TOSH.
Scientific method is based on FACT`s facts that are repeatable by experiment time and time again. You do not require faith for science. A passion, a belief in yourself and the knowing that if you are wrong the scientific community will rip to shreds all without harming anyone apart from pride.
Associate
Yeah seeing what that guy said... I don't think he understands Scientific methods. There's that, then there's the fact that the factual evidence has to be peer reviewed prior to 'acceptance' as a fact. Science isn't just some made up answer which has been provided which isn't allowed to be questioned (if you know what I'm talking about)... Science always challenges and questions itself, if something new is found then it is tried and tested.
Associate
I was going to argue this point... but if you can't see how ridiculous a statement that is, I guess you never will
The scientific method is observation filtered through assumption. The observations are factual within the context of the assumptions, but the assumptions are taken a priori, that is, without evidence.
This is fairly rudimentary, but it is a common misconception driven generally by either a lack of scientific education (I am talking beyond A level for clarity) or a blind belief in the process.
The scientific method is designed to describe and predict reality, that is the purpose of the assumptions. They do not and cannot be demonstrated to define reality in a non recursive fashion.
My degree in chemistry suggests my understanding of science is pretty good by the way.
Associate
Whilst this may be possible, it's not yet been disproved either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I was going to argue this point... but if you can't see how ridiculous a statement that is, I guess you never will
Nice argument. Or not as the case may be. It doesn't alter the point however that by most standards of belief God isn't subject to our existence as therefore the question posed is indeed quite redundant as it assumes God is subject to the same limitations as we and the universe are.
Associate
Depends which book you read. In the Bible he puts himself down here as his own son who has supernatural powers, able to heal sick people and turn water into wine. However, for some reason he doesn't have any hacker-like powers for his own defence, as such. So, in this case of fan-fiction, God is, technically speaking, subject to the same limitations as the souls he himself created.