This is why I think God exists.

MagicMarker

raah! wrote: »

Because he is not a thing, in the sense that things are things.

A HA! So something CAN come from nothing after all!!

Ergo, God doesn't exist.

sellerbarry

Why most people base their beliefs on an old book (any old joe could have written) is beyond me anyway.:rolleyes:

The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary. The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today.

nozzferrahhtoo

Langerland wrote: »

To say we humans can even begin to understand creation, space, time, dimensions, etc is a massive leap.

Nope. Saying we can’t is the leap. Just because there are things we do not understand now does not mean we never will know them and there is nothing to base an assumption on that we can or never will know them.

Our history is punctuated all too often with people claiming something will never be understood, only to have us see it explained later.

You are on safe enough ground to point out things we do not understand now, but to claim that we are therefore incapable of EVER understanding them is wholly an assumption.

I can not see the future and I warrant you can not either. So it is not useful to pretend one can, and make such claims about what we can or will know in the future that we do not now know.

Langerland wrote: »

To prove things either way from within the current confines of our understanding is practically impossible.

Maybe, but this does not change the fact that the problem with the god hypothesis is not that it is not proven, but that it lacks ANY arguments, data, evidence OR reasons to lend it even basic credence.

There is a massive difference between something being unproven and something being entirely devoid of valid evidence or arguments. The problem with the god hypothesis is that it is the latter, not that it is the former.

I, and most people here, do not go around saying "You have to prove god". We go around saying "Have you got any arguments, data, evidence or reasons to lend any credence what soever to the notion that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe???"

Thus far, in 20 years of me asking, searching, reading and researching... I have not been given anything to answer this.

Sam Vimes

raah! wrote: »

Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

So there "must" be something to which the normal rules of the universe as we understand them do not apply, making it not a "thing" in the normal sense of the word. Let's make this shaky assumption for the moment. Now why must this "something" be a god, with all of the connotations that word brings?

philologos

Max Power1 wrote: »

Isnt the religious view that god DID create himself and from that point create the universe in seven days?

Christians believe God is eternal, and wasn't created.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Christians believe God is eternal, and wasn't created.

tell this guy
|
|
|
V

use logic please wrote: »

I didn't say anything created itself. I said that God may have "created itself", I don't know.

Langerland

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. Saying we can’t is the leap. Just because there are things we do not understand now does not mean we never will know them and there is nothing to base an assumption on that we can or never will know them.

Our history is punctuated all too often with people claiming something will never be understood, only to have us see it explained later.

You are on safe enough ground to point out things we do not understand now, but to claim that we are therefore incapable of EVER understanding them is wholly an assumption.

I can not see the future and I warrant you can not either. So it is not useful to pretend one can, and make such claims about what we can or will know in the future that we do not now know.



Maybe, but this does not change the fact that the problem with the god hypothesis is not that it is not proven, but that it lacks ANY arguments, data, evidence OR reasons to lend it even basic credence.

There is a massive difference between something being unproven and something being entirely devoid of valid evidence or arguments. The problem with the god hypothesis is that it is the latter, not that it is the former.

I, and most people here, do not go around saying "You have to prove god". We go around saying "Have you got any arguments, data, evidence or reasons to lend any credence what soever to the notion that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe???"

Thus far, in 20 years of me asking, searching, reading and researching... I have not been given anything to answer this.

Thank you for your reply. I am not discounting or disputing the fact that in the future, we may have evolved to have an intellectual capability to understand the wholeness of the universe and beyond and also prove or disprove things such as deities. However, for the moment I propose it is a matter of perspective and the proof (be that data, evidence or reasons) that some people require to believe in God (or not) differs in relation to that perspective. Many people believe in God purely because of the bible. For others, it is possibly the beauty of life. For more still it is the mysteries and miracle of life. For example, didn't Francis Crick say ""What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle". To many that would be enough data/reason/proof. Unfortunately for me it is not proof to accept or deny the existence of God. It is simply more unknowns.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

As do your own interjections.

You really are quite adept at misrepresenting the nature of a thread - and at closing your eyes to the inadequacies of the answers provided to the questions asked.

nozzferrahhtoo

Langerland wrote: »

I am not discounting or disputing the fact that in the future, we may have evolved to have an intellectual capability to understand the wholeness of the universe and beyond and also prove or disprove things such as deities.

This is closer to being true. I guess when you said “To say we humans can even begin to understand creation, space, time, dimensions, etc is a massive leap.” you just were maybe not being as clear as you could

It very much came across as if you were declaring we simply can not understand these things. The difference between not understanding, and not being capable of understanding, is a MASSIVE one and I welcome your clarification.

I think we humans CAN begin to understand such things, contrary to your original declaration. Not only CAN we, but we HAVE been beginning, which is what our science does every day, and has been doing for some time.

Langerland wrote: »

"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle"

Whoever did say this is making what has been called the "Two card game error". Quite simply, it is applying retrospect to something we have no business applying retrospect to.

Try it yourself. Deal out 52 cards in a row. Not too special is it? However I challenge you to work out the probability of having got that exact hand as it was dealt. It is MASSIVELY improbable. I have quite a decent Calculator, and even it can not calculate the probability past the first 16 cards, let alone all 52.

You will likely NEVER deal the same 52 cards in that order ever again, no matter how much you try, even if your family were to take up the challenge for another 1000 generations after you. If every person alive today had dealt at the same time as you, it is likely no one else would have got the same hand.

The ONLY difference between your 52 cards, and the universe is that in only one case is someone applying retrospect and saying "We must consider it amazing that the cards we have been dealt were dealt in this exact way".

We were dealt the universe we were dealt. Simple as that. The probability of it is entirely irrelevant, and the probability of it in retrospect is 1 in 1, because that is exactly what happened.

use logic please

When I come home from work today, I'll try to answer some of your posts. I cannot possibly answer all of them. I'm used to posting on guitar forums where it takes hours to get a single reply, so I am surprised by the fact that there's a reply every few minutes here, I expected maybe five or ten replies to deal with.
Anyway, I'll do my best.

krudler

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

Hmmm, lets apply that pattern to the other forum shall we?

<snip>

MOD EDIT

Let's not. See the charter.
Thanking you.

Dades

Choochtown

Apologies if this has been linked to before. (I'm new!) Perhaps all posters to a thread such as this should watch this before posting??! ...

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=nonstampcollector&annotation_id=annotation_610342&feature=iv#p/u/1/bSLkQnCurgs

actuallylike

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Just because you don't understand everything about the Universe, doesn't mean you get to say 'God did it' to fill in the gaps*. It's that type of thinking that conjured up Banshees, Fairy Forts, Leprechauns and Astrology.

*Yes, I'm paraphrasing a comedian.

Exactly, that's what I've always said. I personally would love to have faith but I'd just be kidding myself. The belief that we're going somewhere after we die is a lovely crutch but there's just no evidence to support it whatsoever.

It's a typical human trait that we have to understand something. The universe isn't presented to us as a puzzle to solve, we probably don't have the mental capacity to even grasp the ins and outs of it.

Just say for example you were really bad at, oh I don't know, maths. Say you were given an algorithm to solve and you just couldn't get your head around it. What would you do? You'd admit you didn't know right? You wouldn't go "Eh, the answer's 5". And not only say that but try and convince everyone else that the answer truely is 5. And scoff at the other people who may say it's 6 (different religions).

Free yourself of doubt and enjoy your life. I feel that this is the only chance and I'm not going to waste a single second worrying about if there is anything after or not and believe me, my life is so much better for it. Come on in, the water's warm!:)

philologos

krudler wrote: »

<snipped>

MOD EDIT

The Christianity forum can mind it's own affairs.

Dades

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

Wait, so the cops knew internal affairs were on to them?

sink

I think when casual theological discussions stumble into the areas cosmology and theoretical physics, we run into some pretty big problems.

Cosmology and theoretical physics are entirely different to theology, they are based on entirely different and incompatible ways of thinking. The former is based upon pure maths backed up by empirical observation and deals with matters completely alien to human intuition. The latter is based almost entirely on human intuition completely bereft of formal maths and empirical observation. Using theories laid down by the former to contemplate the latter is folly.

The living universe that is being painted by modern physics is impossible to comprehend in any other way than mathematically. We cannot use our intuition to explore these areas because often they behave entirely counter to it. Yet theories such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics describe empirical observation with close to perfect accuracy. They are two of the most accurate scientific theories humanity has to offer and are massive achievements for evolved carbon based life forms.

Due to the fact that we can't use our intuition or common understanding of the everyday world to comprehend these topics, physicists lack the language to describe these concepts to us in everyday terms. When we hear Lawrence Krauss or Brian Greene attempt to put these ideas in terms we can understand, we must realise that we are getting butchered simplified versions of the original theories, that while fascinating, completely fail to describe accurately the original theories. The original theories can really only be described using very high level maths, which is out of reach of your average person.

My point is, arguing for or against god using a laymans rudimentary understanding of these topics is like trying to argue for or against the potential benefits of stem cells, only using the understanding expounded in a six year olds textbook on the human body.

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek.

Except when it reads as something that a loving and caring god would say. The translations are always perfect when it reads that way. That or context is wrong.

Morbert

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

As do your own interjections.

You really are quite adept at misrepresenting the nature of a thread - and at closing your eyes to the inadequacies of the answers provided to the questions asked.

My 'interjections' into this thread were limited to the following:

1. Pointing out that there is not a generic 'religious view', or indeed a majority Christian view, that God created Himself.

2. Responding to Robin's misunderstanding about Christian theology as outlined in the Nicene Creed.

3. Answering a few direct questions that arose from that concerning Christology.

4. Responding to a hypothetical question which, as its basis, assumed the existence of God - which then subsequently had another poster telling me I had to prove the existence of God first before I could address any such hypothetical arguments.

However, if you, as moderator, feel these interjections are unhelpful then I would welcome any guidance from you. Would you prefer that I refrained from poiinting out factual errors concerning mainstream Christian theology? Or would I be better off ignoring direct questions? It's your forum, so please just let me know.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

Good point.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

However, if you, as moderator, feel these interjections are unhelpful then I would welcome any guidance from you. Would you prefer that I refrained from poiinting out factual errors concerning mainstream Christian theology? Or would I be better off ignoring direct questions? It's your forum, so please just let me know.

Of course interjections such as the one I quoted are unhelpful. I respect your right to defend what you see as factual errors by addressing them directly (although unfortunately this thread has enough clutter).

You'll note two edited threads above which concerned equally unhelpful generalisations about the Christianity forum so be thankful at least your generalisations survived the knife.

Langerland

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Whoever did say this is making what has been called the "Two card game error". Quite simply, it is applying retrospect to something we have no business applying retrospect to.

I should have clarified who made this quote. It was Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer (so called father) of DNA. I am sure there are plenty references to this quote if you google.

Sam Vimes

Langerland wrote: »

I should have clarified who made this quote. It was Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer (so called father) of DNA. I am sure there are plenty references to this quote if you google.

What's your point?

Ush1

PDN wrote: »

These interactions seem to follow a familar patttern.

1. One atheist asks a question about why God does something.

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

3. Second atheist gets all stroppy and says in effect, "How dare you answer such a question without first proving that God exists!"

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

5. Atheists slap each other on back and congratulate themselves at how so few Christians post in their forum which, apparently, proves how devastating atheist arguments are (along with analogies about paintball).

1. Perfectly valid.

2. Generalistation, and the attempt to answer the question is futile, lets be honest.

3. More generalising but still valid question from the athiest, stroppy or not.

4. Nice, people who don't believe in God are in a madhouse.:rolleyes: I believe what you said to me in the Christian Forum was "a loss we will try to bear with fortitude". Likewise.

5. Your own christian forum seems very welcoming, what with homophobic threads abound which actually violate the charter but are let go.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

4. Christian realises he's in a madhouse and exits the room.

Ush1 wrote: »

5. Your own christian forum seems very welcoming, what with homophobic threads abound [...]

Ladies, could we avoid peeing over the fence?

Ush1

robindch wrote: »

Ladies, could we avoid trying to pee over the fence? It's undignified.

:pac:
No bother.

Zombrex

Inbetween the pissing contest Morbets point I think has been missed. He (she?) put it very well.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist

I think that is the best way I've heard it put so far.

krudler

you'd think that id god did actually exist, he would have gotten wind of all this petty bickering about his existence and actually showed up by now just to set things straight. either he doesnt exist or he's just sitting there, munching on popcorn chuckling away to himself at it all, which makes him a bit of a dick.

MagicMarker

Wicknight wrote: »

Inbetween the pissing contest Morbets point I think has been missed. He (she?) put it very well.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist

I think that is the best way I've heard it put so far.

I agree, it makes sense.

Turtwig

use logic please wrote: »

We humans are absolutely constrained by time and space [[Our minds are constrained by much more than just time and space.] as far as I know, we cannot think outside of these parameters [We actually can, but what's interesting to note is that when we are thinking outside these parameters we tend only to have intuitive explanations coming from supernatural phenomena. For example, the physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that it was easier for us to visual Angels than it was for us to visual a light wave that is accurately described by the laws of physics. So the thing to bear in mind when thinking outside of the conventional parameters is are you thinking in terms of reality or in terms of the brains convenience namely intuitive thinking that's usually supernatural in nature.] as far as I know, so assuming that space and time are always constraints on everything, we reach a problem. The problem is this:

Where did everything in existence come from? [The word "where" implies a source. If you are to take the literal beginning of time as understood from the Big Bang, then where you stand today is the source it merely expanded.] It must have come from something. [This "must" is an assumption. Do you have any grounds for this assumption? ]

Say it came from X1, then where did X1 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X1 came from X2, then where did X2 come from? It must have come from something.

Say X2 came from X3, then where did X3 come from? It must have come from something.


If we consider the sequence X1, X2, X3,... There must have been something, let's call it Xn, which created itself, [Indeed,but can one not argue that this Xn is merely the universe without a supernatural cause?]if there wasn't such an Xn, then nothing would ever have managed to exist, because the sequence leading to the existence of what exists now would never have started. But we know that things exist, so there must have been some Xn which created itself, but now we have the problem that the notion of self-creation does not make sense for anything which is constrained by space and time like humans are constrained by space and time.

Now, in light of the fact that we have the above problem, the fact that things do exist can be explained only the creative action of some thing which is not constrained, as people are, by time and space. This thing which transcends time and space is God. [God, but why Him/Her/It, there could be a million other supernatural things that transcend time and space. More so, why does the thing that transcends time and space actually have to be a supernatural thing?]

Atheists often ask questions of religious people which would require religious people to fully understand God, it is totally unreasonable to expect any human being, absolutely constrained by time and space, to fully understand this God which transcends time and space. That's been said before, but it makes sense. [This last bit is very fuzzy. Religious people can understand various aspects of God. It just seems a little too convenient to me that religious people can easily describe any positive attribute of God without much difficulty. Yet when it comes to the difficult aspects, such as death, suffering, jumping logic gaps, the religious folk resort to the idea that finite beings cannot comprehend infinite beings. Religious people use finite approximations to understand the infinite God. To me, it seems they selectively choose these approximations to confirm beautiful aspects of their God. They also seem to selectively choose not to approximate aspects of that God which may lead to confusion about their faith. Atheists, in my view, like to approximate both the pros and cons of God.


I'm sure others have made similar arguments to this but this is how I explain my opinion.

I wasn't sure what would be the most convenient way to quote this post for you, but I think this is the best way. I've replied to your post directly above with bold font. I've also included the bold bits down here outside the quote again for your ease of use in quoting for replying.

Our minds are constrained by much more than just time and space.

We actually can, but what's interesting to note is that when we are thinking outside these parameters we tend only to have intuitive explanations coming from supernatural phenomena. For example, the physicist Richard Feynman once remarked that it was easier for us to visual Angels than it was for us to visual a light wave that is accurately described by the laws of physics. So the thing to bear in mind when thinking outside of the conventional parameters is are you thinking in terms of reality or in terms of the brains convenience namely intuitive thinking that's usually supernatural in nature.

The word "where" implies a source. If you are to take the literal beginning of time as understood from the Big Bang, then where you stand today is the source it merely expanded.

This "must" is an assumption. Do you have any grounds for this assumption?

Indeed,but can one not argue that this Xn is merely the universe without a supernatural cause?

God, but why Him/Her/It, there could be a million other supernatural things that transcend time and space. More so, why does the thing that transcends time and space actually have to be a supernatural thing?

This last bit is very fuzzy. Religious people can understand various aspects of God. It just seems a little too convenient to me that religious people can easily describe any positive attribute of God without much difficulty. Yet when it comes to the difficult aspects, such as death, suffering, jumping logic gaps, the religious folk resort to the idea that finite beings cannot comprehend infinite beings. Religious people use finite approximations to understand the infinite God. To me, it seems they selectively choose these approximations to confirm beautiful aspects of their God. They also seem to selectively choose not to approximate aspects of that God which may lead to confusion about their faith. Atheists, in my view, like to approximate both the pros and cons of God.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Inbetween the pissing contest Morbets point I think has been missed. He (she?) put it very well.

There was never a time when the universe didn't exist

I think that is the best way I've heard it put so far.

MagicMarker wrote: »

I agree, it makes sense.

He's just copying something I said last August :P

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Technically the universe has always existed because the word always is a time related word. There was never a time when the universe did not exist

Langerland

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point?

ooo handbags!!:eek: Relax....nozzferrahhtoo only said "whoever made this point...." I was merely clarifying.....

Wow....so highly strung...:)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Would you prefer that I refrained from poiinting out factual errors concerning mainstream Christian theology?

Mainstream Christian theology - what's that?

candy-gal1

Im probably going to get slated for this, but imho nothing can be proven wrong (it can be proven right, yes) until were dead and it doesnt really matter then tbh.
I understand that evolution is the obvious and more believable thing to believe in, you have to have an awful lot of blind faith to believe about the man in the sky story but its also true that it is near to impossable to prove something doesnt exist either. its up to the individual i think.




How about someone coming up with a live forever antidote? :rolleyes: Now that would be truly great. thats just me though.

Galvasean

candy-gal1 wrote: »

its also true that it is near to impossable to prove something doesnt exist either. its up to the individual i think.

And that is why the burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim that something happened.
"Incredible claims call for incredible evidence."

philologos

candy-gal1 wrote: »

How about someone coming up with a live forever antidote? :rolleyes: Now that would be truly great. thats just me though.

Living, forever, here? That would be absolutely awful! :pac:

It's by and large a good thing by my book, that I will die. That I won't have to live here forever.

candy-gal1

Jakkass wrote: »

Living, forever, here? That would be absolutely awful! :pac:

Is it just for me then?!
Why would you not want that? just curious, as i would love it!!!

philologos

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Is it just for me then?!
Why would you not want that? just curious, as i would love it!!!

There are quite a number of reasons why I wouldn't want that!

1) To live for infinity years with a decayed body / uncurable disease would be absolutely awful.
2) To live with the pains and frustrations of this world (mostly inflicted by other people) is tolerable for a time, but it is not tolerable forever.
3) As a Christian, I believe there is much more than this, and I would like to meet my Maker if you will.

I don't think anyone, who really considers what living forever on earth means will come to the conclusion that they would love it.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mainstream Christian theology - what's that?

"Mainstream Christian Theology" is shorthand for "Those core beliefs that have been held in common as expressed in mutually-held creeds by over 95% of professing Christians over the last 1600 years or more, while recognising that on other, more minor, issues which are not referred to in said mutually-held creeds, those same Christians might disagree with each other."

Those of us who are in the communication business find the former shorthand version makes for more effective communication and aids comprehension and understanding. However, those with more of a tendency towards pedantry or anal retention are free to use the latter, and more verbose, version if they wish.

candy-gal1

Okay point taken there, but isnt all that better than being put in the ground and thats it ( in case there isnt anything after this at all). Tbh id rather be here forever and look after myself as much as possible if that was ever an option.

philologos

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Okay point taken there, but isnt all that better than being put in the ground and thats it (in case there isnt anything after this at all).

I don't know if it is to be honest. The frustrations of never knowing the answers to the key questions of life, would drive people with a philosophical mind batty. I'd rather know that my life was going to end.

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Tbh id rather be here forever and look after myself as much as possible if that was ever an option.

Would you rather just live here forever, if it was the case that there was a God, and there was a hereafter, and there was a possibility that not only you, but others could find it?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with living here for my entire lifespan, but I believe that my true home is elsewhere.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

My 'interjections' into this thread were limited to the following:

Didnt you say something about leaving the room? Oh wait... didnt I predict this was a load of wash?

PDN wrote: »

2. Christian politely and helpfully attempts to answer that question.

Where by the way? IF you scroll back to your posts you will find it is essentially made up of two parts. The first is you answering a question with a question, which is neither polite nor in my experience rarely helpful. You then went on to tell people they "havent a clue" which is also unhelpful in anyway and is a stretch to call polite.

So not only did you prove yourself wrong by not sticking to point 4 of your own vast generalisation... 2 never happened either.

nozzferrahhtoo

Langerland wrote: »

I should have clarified who made this quote. It was Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, co-discoverer (so called father) of DNA. I am sure there are plenty references to this quote if you google.

It is irrelevant who made it, and in your first post you only said you THINK you knew who wrote it. Hence the reason I did not mention the name and started with "whoever did say this..."

Or put another way, what I wrote would be the same if he said it, Gay Byrne said it, Einstein said it, Darwin said it, Moses said it, or the little leprechaun living on my forehead said it. Its still hogwash for the reasons I laid out.

MagicMarker

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Okay point taken there, but isnt all that better than being put in the ground and thats it ( in case there isnt anything after this at all). Tbh id rather be here forever and look after myself as much as possible if that was ever an option.

I feel the same, I would rather be alive than dead. I think most would feel that way.

When you're dead though, you won't know it!

candy-gal1

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know if it is to be honest. The frustrations of never knowing the answers to the key questions of life, would drive people with a philosophical mind batty. I'd rather know that my life was going to end.



Would you rather just live here forever, if it was the case that there was a God, and there was a hereafter, and there was a possibility that not only you, but others could find it?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with living here for my entire lifespan, but I believe that my true home is elsewhere.

Well obviously if there was black and white proof that there was something after this then great! But more than likely we will never know either way until its too late so I would take something to make me live forever if there was such a thing. (that may never work either though tbh)

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Didnt you say something about leaving the room? Oh wait... didnt I predict this was a load of wash?

I'm avoiding generalisations as per the mods instructions, so I'm going to pretend that I'm all surprised that a poster would substitute snide personal comments for discussion.

Wow! I didn't see that coming!

I just can't help being a helpful kind of chap who responds to comments directed his way instead of ignoring them. Sorry if that offends you.

candy-gal1

MagicMarker wrote: »

I feel the same, I would rather be alive than dead. I think most would feel that way.

When you're dead though, you won't know it!

Yes!! exactly, i mean when your gone it doesnt matter what you believed or didnt believe in. So the best option is living forever imho.

nozzferrahhtoo

candy-gal1 wrote: »

imho nothing can be proven wrong (it can be proven right, yes)

Actually in science it is the other way around. Nothing in science has ever been proven right, it just stands up to tests, but those tests are used to prove things wrong all the time.

All of science is built on this. We make a falsifiable proposition, we find evidence to support that proposition, and then the rest of the scientific community test the bejaysus out of it to find out if the proposition holds.

As such nothing in science is proven right... ever... what we consider "true" in science are concepts that have stood up to testing and are so far unfalsified.

Take for example the speed of light. No one has "proven" that this is constant in a standard vacuum everywhere, at all times, in all places. However we have tested this and tested this and every test shows that it is. We treat it as "true" therefore... though who knows it might be different somewhere else we havent checked yet.

We prove things wrong all the time, we never prove things right. Prove to me, for example, the sun WILL rise tomorrow... or the next day... or the next day. Right now your only way to do so is to wait and see, while referring to past tests.

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

I'm avoiding generalisations as per the mods instructions, so I'm going to pretend that I'm all surprised that a poster would substitute snide personal comments for discussion.

Still havent left the room then? Do you think maybe going back and editing your generalised post around point 4 would be wise then? Given that you have proven it wrong yourself, it is only the right thing to do.

You might reconsider point 2 too in the light of the part of my comment above that you did not reply to.

sensibleken

use logic please wrote: »

You are right, our logical minds are constrained, but we have to work with the logic we have in order to gain understanding. Using my logic as well as I could, I came to my conclusion. Of course, the human mind can always be wrong on matters beyond its comprehension.

Im dont agree. Our minds are not constrained by logic. We have imagination, and its that part of the brain that invented god in my opinion. It is also why you made the giant leap of Xn created itself. Thats a massive leap and a premise that is not based on anything.

You have not shown that Xn created itself