Ok, would you change your life if it were proven that God DOES exist?

[wildblue 7]

Is this a clever way of attempting to bring back the "Do you take more risks because you have a Cypres?" debate?

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

... us all to play nice and stop killing each other...
M

So what are we supposed to do with overpopulation?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[AggieDave 6]

I grew up in a very religous family, so it was begun by force feed, BUT I wanted to know more about it, deeply, so I could make very educated decisions about how I am going to approach my decisions about religion.

When I disagree with something, or don't necissarily fully agree with something, I like to study it intently. That gives me an indepth understanding of what I disagree with, thus I'm able to form my arguments much better with stronger points.

I tend to do that a lot. I figured other people would too, instead of assuming what they hear is right, or what they percieve is right; however, my experience has proven myself wrong on that point.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Nope, not religious, BUT I've studied theology pretty damned deeply.

Whatever for? Why?

How can you make an informed decision unless you know both sides of the story?

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Religious beliefs are the most logic-resistant notions I've ever come across

Well, duh!

Sorry, but Faith and Logic (in the classical sense, fallacies, proofs, etc) are not compatible. You cannot rationally prove either the existance NOR the nonexistance of something that relies on Faith. That's why it's called faith, not fact.

Logically, using sound proofs, prove to me that there is no God. Go ahead. It's a challenge.

I freely admit that I cannot logically prove to you the existance of God. But I BELIEVE it. Therein lies the rub.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Logically, using sound proofs, prove to me that there is no God. Go ahead. It's a challenge.

God is dead, I've seen his corpse.

[lurch 0]

When I disagree with something, or don't necissarily fully agree with something, I like to study it intently. That gives me an indepth understanding of what I disagree with, thus I'm able to form my arguments much better with stronger points.

Same here, to a point. I paid attention long enough to build up one hell of a list of things that made no sense and/or conflicted with the rest of objective reality. You could summon all kinds of supposed facts and zillions of volumes of literature all based on subjective beliefs and perceptions supposedly proving beyond all doubt that the earth is flat...Build that pile-o-literature to the height of everest and the complexity of human society won't make it any more sensible or any more true. Earth is still not flat no matter how much complex argument someone puts into proving it is. Go measure it, not flat. Magellan was the first to actually go and DO that, so I heard.
Religious assertions even about the mere existence of any of those ideas, god, satan, sin, etc, have even less of a leg to stand on than the flat earthers because there is not even a flat-looking planet to point to to back up the assertions. With anything where "god" is added to the picture the picture suddenly bears no resemblance to objective measurable reality. With measured objective reality there is no end to the cause and effect chain. Everything we can't explain, dig deep enough you'll find the root cause, some physical, measurable phenomenon. Then you have to find the cause of THAT, on and on it goes till you're looking so far back into the first few seconds of the big bang reality itself didn't exist yet to define what the next cause was. The picture literally goes right out of the universe and we can't see any further.
The point is the question chains are literally endless whereas with religion and anything claiming to have anything to do with god, the chain ends quite shortly with someone claiming to know the final answer and end to all questions and debate, "god did it/wants it/made it" and thats the end of it. Ever seen that cool effect where you have two or three mirrors facing each other? Infinite receding images? Where exactly is the last one in the chain of images, how big is it and how many images does it go until it stops IS there an end to the chain of images? Claiming to know the nature thought and will of god is like claiming to know with certainty that there is in fact a last image, exactly where the last image is and its properties as well.
Any religion (and by any religion I mean any belief system claiming to know of and the properties of the creator of the universe commonly called "god")...any religion using the concept of god is claiming to have certain factual knowledge of that last image and claiming to know all about it, what it wants, all about the end of the chain...Since I know damn well every human out there claiming this knowledge does not have access to the information they claim, it's bullshit no matter how ornate and complex the tale gets. You might as well tell me you know with certainty all about the inhabitants of the fifth planet around aldebaran and what they want me to do, when I know damn well people haven't gone there yet and have no data available besides the knowledge that there's a star there and we can measure its size spectrum age composition and distance. I will say with certainty there is a star there, or at least a bright point I take to BE a star, But I dismiss all claims of detailed knowledge of the properties and wishes of that star coming from people who obviously haven't been there don't have access to the year 3000's version of the hubble which could maybe tell them these things so basically theyre full of shit.
I will say there are levels of order beyond human mind resolution which recede fractally so far we can't make it out anymore...I will not claim to know the nature name and wishes of the things beyond that resolution. I find it difficult to respect anyone who does. Call anything beyond that resolution "God" if you must, hell even I do, sometimes...but i cant take seriously an assertion that you know whats there and its an old bearded man wants to torture me for eternity for not kissing his ass in a way that pleases Him and His plans for us. In the universe I see, I see just those infinite receding images farther than I can ever learn or go in twenty lifetimes, and none of my questions end in "god" they end in two more questions about the next level I just succeeded in understanding. -end manifesto mode again dammit
-sorry but the subject demanded a well thought out answer.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[lurch 0]

Logically, using sound proofs, prove to me that there is no God. Go ahead. It's a challenge.

Nah. That one's easy provided you can agree on what you are defining as "god"

The usual definition of god is simple enough: eternal, omnipotent omniscient perfect creator source being, unlimited and all powerful, him to whom all things are possible.

That definition is a logical contradiction in terms, an oxymoron, a thing which cannot exist because its existence nullifies itself. The math is most easily expressed in english as a question:
Why can't god make a pizza bigger than he can eat?

That question breaks the concept of god.
If he can make a pizza bigger than he can eat, then he has a pizza he cannot eat which is a limitation, which is in denial of the idea of unlimited god. But if he cannot MAKE that pizza, then that too is a limitation and again the concept is broken on itself. Either way the question carries the implicit logic that you wind up with god-the-not-quite-all-powerful which is once again not in line with the definition of god. You could phrase it differently, why can't god make a planet he can't destroy, why can't god make a universe he can't dismantle, but the math works out the same. any questions?

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[PhillyKev 0]

You just have to have "faith" that god can create a pizza that he can and can't eat.

[Sebazz1 2]

All my friends are going to be in Hell anyway so... No I wouldn't change a thing. I wanna partay with my friends...

Friend of the devil is a friend of mine.. Greatful Dead

[lurch 0]

...which is the same order of logic as having faith that 1+1=3 AND 1+1=2 and that both are true, simultaneously. That is simply outside the definition of reality, so anything with that label on it or those kind of contents=unreal. Hey, is this a thread hijack? Sorry, scuse me....

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...here's one for you. Prove that 1+1 does not equal 3.

[lurch 0]

1+1=2. 2 is not 3. 3 is 1 more than 2 which makes it different, one count more. 3 divided by 2 cannot =1 no matter how many different ways you divide it unless you chop off 1, in which case you just turned it back into 2. Basic law of definition. If it isn't 2 anymore, if its 2 and 1 more its now 3. 1 being singular of course.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

1+1=2. 2 is not 3. 3 is 1 more than 2 which makes it different, one count more. 3 divided by 2 cannot =1 no matter how many different ways you divide it unless you chop off 1, in which case you just turned it back into 2. Basic law of definition. If it isn't 2 anymore, if its 2 and 1 more its now 3. 1 being singular of course.

Your proof is incomplete. Your initial claim that 1+1=2 needs to be proven first. Then you need to prove that 2 <> 3.

Why do you believe that 1+1=2? Because someone told you and you believe them. You don't have any proof.

I can prove to you that 101=5

[lurch 0]

Now you could chop your 3 in half by 2 so its even and get 2 1.5's. unevenly cut, you could chop it so one piece is a 1.750 and the other piece is a 1.250, but you still have two of them!
you could even chop it way lopsided and get all ornate with it so you get most of a 3 and this little leftover fragment, something like .563980256 and 2.436019744 but you know you just can't get rid of that little bit left over and your bigger piece is still just a bit shy of a 3 so you still get two of em dammit.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[lurch 0]

take 1. of anything. put it next to another 1 of the same thing. count how many of those things you have. you'll see two, thats (2) of em. that 2 of course being equal to and created by the existence of 2 1's, put together. go ahead and prove 101=5. this I gotta see.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

do you mean who's God, or WHOSE GOd?

both. either?

george burns, alanis morrestte? morgan freeman? charelton heston? jim carey? vishnu? yaweah? cut out python figurehead? quezeqtol. is god pissed because i'm way behind on virgin sacrifices or just because i'm to lazy to look up the correct spelling?

divinity is another matter entirely...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[lurch 0]

and if you work this backwards and move it up one notch numerically it also proves 2<>3 by reverse implication.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

go ahead and prove 101=5

Open calculator on your pc, put in scientific mode, click on BIN, enter 101, click on DEC, you've now converted the number 101 in binary to the number 5 in decimal, both of which have equal value.

Quote

take 1. of anything. put it next to another 1 of the same thing. count how many of those things you have. you'll see two, thats (2)

Wrong...when I put 1 of something next to 1 of something else and count how many I have, I get 10. (see above).

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

both. either?

george burns, alanis morrestte? morgan freeman? charelton heston? jim carey? vishnu? yaweah? cut out python figurehead? quezeqtol.

I think it's the giant alien spider from S. Park.

[lurch 0]

you make one big mistake...101 binary does NOT=101 reality. 101 binary does not MEAN one hundred and one pulses or one hundred and one of anything. it is a code capable of being handled by a binary system which when translated to reality as we perceive it =5. The identity does not depend on a definition that doesn't cross frameworks. Ohayo, (spelled phonetically) is japanese for good morning. If you hear a japanese say that to another do you think they are greeting each other by stating the name of a state in america? Ohio was never mentioned. You might HEAR "Ohio" and think of the state but "Ohio" was neither mentioned nor thought of by either japanese when they greeted each other. When 101 is present at a given address in memory the sum being represented is not one hundred and one. it is 5. you can choose to translate the 5 to 101 but you are simply changing the format and meaning not establishing equality. go ahead and prove 2=3 by that logic.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[lurch 0]

Why do you believe that 1+1=2? Because someone told you and you believe them. You don't have any proof.
oh. and as for this, wrong again. i don't believe it because I was told, i KNOW it because by the accepted definitions of 1, 2, etc, and by what I see with my own eyes, when I put 1 of a thing next to another of that thing I have 2 of those things. You could try to muddy the issue claiming my senses can be deceived with mirrors so I only THINK I see 2 when there's 3 but this is also invalid. Doesn't change the fact that there were 3 of them there it just means due to mirrors my EYES saw 2 images and not the 3 that was there. The sight does not define the reality...the reality defines the sight. Gotta crash...been a long day....I'll be interested to see later if you ever succeed in redefining 2 as = to 3 in a logically sound manner. better sharpen your pencil and crack a gallon of whiskey. have fun.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[BikerBabe 0]

Dude, ask any philosophy professor...you cannot logically or rationally prove or disprove the existence of something that is based entirely on faith.

I believe that apples are purple. I take it on faith that apples are purple. You telling me "But, apples are red, they are NOT purple" is not proof to me. It is an irrational belief, but is it wrong? Well, in the case of apples, we have evidence that apples aren't purple. But until you show me every apple on the face of the planet, I'm still going to believe apples are purple. Because it's faith.

In the case of God, we have no evidence either way, so I take it on faith that He exists. You take it on faith that He does not. I cannot logically prove to you that he does. You cannot logically prove to me that he doesn't.

Believing in God is not Logical.

NOT believing in God is not Logical, either.

Please don't take the above out of context, I'm using the capital-L version of the word "Logic", meaning the classical school of thought that led to such things as geometry and modern debate. Unfortunately, the words "illogical" and "irrational" have come to carry far more negative connotations than they should.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[billvon 3,114]

>But what if there was sudden proof that there IS an afterlife, and it
> DOES matter what you do here in this go-around? Let's say this is
> open to those who believe in heaven/hell-flavored divinity as well as
> reincarnation/karma-flavored divinity.

If you get into the good seats for doing good deeds? I'd stick to what I'm doing. If you had to deposit $5000 in god's account in a bank in switzerland to get into heaven? I'd probably do that. Heck, I payed more than that (over about a year) to be on the 300-way, and that was just two weeks. If I had to kill people in his name? No thanks.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

you make one big mistake...101 binary does NOT=101 reality.

What the heck does that mean? Binary is not reality. 101 and 5 can both be used to represent this many X's (X X X X X).

If humans were born with 2 fingers instead of 10, we would look at that and say there are 101 X's, not 5.