|
There is no God.
|
Guys... we have to prove that Yoda is made up.
We have to prove that Harry Potter is made up. We have to prove that Atlantis is a myth. We have to prove that Zeus is a myth. etc. etc. etc. 
Wait...YODA???
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
(June 19, 2014 at 5:07 am)pocaracas Wrote:(June 19, 2014 at 5:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Wait...YODA??? Yes, I know who he is, but whaddya mean by 'made up'?? Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
 RE: There is no God.
June 19, 2014 at 5:48 am
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 5:54 am by Mudhammam.)
Whereas someone like Frodo has their three or four stock arguments for God's existence, and these always rely on some convoluted twists and turns of purported logic (which is why it's no surprise that even the majority of philosophers find them unconvincing--to say nothing of everyone else outside of the religious fold), the evidence against God from science, by contrast, is more of a continuous accumulation of seemingly insignificant facts from all fields that together form a powerful and convincing picture of a universe that has no use or purpose for his or anyone else's puny conception of the divine. It's absolutely certain, I say with great pleasure, that this trend will continue to work in humanity's favor--and against the Frodos of the world, whether they wish to remain in their delusion or not.
What if God is the deistic type that isn't interested in revealing himself to anyone?
I agree that the evidence for the Abrahamic God not existing is immensely strong (which makes me extremely certain such a god does not exist), but I can't say with a good degree of confidence that a deistic God does not exist. RE: There is no God.
June 19, 2014 at 6:10 am
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 6:21 am by Mudhammam.)
(June 19, 2014 at 6:03 am)Irrational Wrote: What if God is the deistic type that isn't interested in revealing himself to anyone? No one has any knowledge of this hypothetical being (or essence?), nor could we unless it suddenly became interested in revealing itself to us (or might we discover it? Catch it off guard, in a trillion year sleep perhaps?). And then we might find that God is a totally inappropriate term. It may be limited by the same or similar constraints that we are, granted it's a very intelligent organism which can create "design spaces" called "universes." But who's to say man will never accomplish such a feat? Would that actually make us gods? To our subjects perhaps but again, if God simply means "superior being," then my point obviously doesn't apply. 
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione
Then it is irrelevant to us, and we should use the resources we have to thrive as a species. What if a possible god wished it so? We can imagine many tales, but the things you can show to exist are right there for us to look at, to analise the best we can. Gods are just not there, either they refuge on our ignorance, either they hide under the coat of blind faith. I have faith in real stuff, like, I have faith in friends, on my wife, but not on a fictional character that borrowed long learned ethics to create a death cult.
Faith in real stuff. That's basically what I'm putting forth. It's okay to evade the burden of proof; it certainly isn't on us. But if the opposition insists otherwise, it's really not a difficult burden. The deeper our understanding of nature becomes, the more God (at least the ones that matter) is exposed as irrelevant like the weak frauds who invented him.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
