Ye Religion Thread

[DaHanG]

Bill Clinton would say "define prove", but i'm trying to defend getting my dick sucked. having a strong inner conviction that god exists, is not a good reason for you to believe it.  what is true, and is not true is unknown now, so what's good reason to believe is debatable.  inconsistent beliefs isn't going to change my belief, or give me any reason not to believe it.

is that not the essence of "proof"?...being able to share something with another without a risk of rational reasoning for disagreement?

[metaL]

real "proof" will never be found for either side, but for now, i think i'll stick to NOT believing in the improbable, that the universe (and what may lie beyond) as we know it was created by mere chance.  afterall, there was just one big explosion and everything turned out wonderfully  lol idiots

[DaHanG]

the concept of god might not make your brain hurt as much, but: However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.

carry on,

 

[reaper]

However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable.

that depends, if we knew more information that might not be the case

[DaHanG]

just because we don't have the information doesn't mean his existence is a 50/50 chance. science/logic/reason tells us this is statistically improbable, even moreso than the way the universe was created.

[reaper]

science/logic/reason tells us this is statistically improbable, even moreso than the way the universe was created.

to you science, logic, and reason show god is improbable.  to someone else science/logic/reason show god is likely

[metaL]

my sole belief is that there must have been some outside entity facilitating the creation of the universe (multi-verse?), as opposed to shit "just happening".

and hang in response to your signature, since when does reading something provide evidence? what do you say to those who read the bible (which is what i'm sure the athiests here think i base my beliefs - there's plenty of bullshit in the bible as well imo)? perhaps some of you should think for once, instead of just going along with what some scientists say. oh wait, they can't teach common sense, guess some of you are out of luck 

[DaHanG]

science/logic/reason tells us this is statistically improbable, even moreso than the way the universe was created.

to you science, logic, and reason show god is improbable.  to someone else science/logic/reason show god is likely

well...no. god himself is who i am speaking of. there is no debate in the realm of logic/reason/science that god himself is statistically improbable. however, there can be a debate in the realm of logic/reason/science that god is necessary. these are distinct differences.

[DaHanG]

and hang in response to your signature, since when does reading something provide evidence?

that is nothing more than a funny exchange, which is why i added it. i'm aware that reading does not equal evidence. but by your questioning you imply that the evidence is either not convincing or difficult to find. among serious atheists and theists, the big bang theory is by far the best theory for how it all happened - guided or not. do you have a better one?

[QuakeDuke]

i have a feeling i'm exciting you, so yes. a personal experience proves nothing.

Actually, no, not excite, sadden.

Reasoning to follow in next post.

QD

[QuakeDuke]

It has been fun, but I no longer have any reason to continue with this thread, or any other thread.

Since personal experiences prove nothing, any and all things we might discuss fall into the category of nothing. Why? Everything we discuss is based on our personal experience, what we've read, heard, learned in some form or fashion.

This also means all the science in the world means nothing. Why? Because every experiment, every theorem, every idea is embedded with the personal experience of scientists who then pass that on to us - however, since personal experiences prove nothing, all the stuff science has so called proven is invalid because it is based on the personal experience of the scientist who has communicated their personal experiences (learning, etc)  with us.

Have fun.

QD

[DaHanG]

It has been fun, but I no longer have any reason to continue with this thread, or any other thread.

Since personal experiences prove nothing, any and all things we might discuss fall into the category of nothing. Why? Everything we discuss is based on our personal experience, what we've read, heard, learned in some form or fashion.

This also means all the science in the world means nothing. Why? Because every experiment, every theorem, every idea is embedded with the personal experience of scientists who then pass that on to us - however, since personal experiences prove nothing, all the stuff science has so called proven is invalid because it is based on the personal experience of the scientist who has communicated their personal experiences (learning, etc)  with us.

Have fun.

QD

lmao? i didn't say personal experiences don't shape how we view the world. i said they don't PROVE one outlook is right and another wrong. seeing how you interpreted, i regret not using the phrase "religious experience", but that could technically leave out any spiritual experience or feelings of awe/splendor (like when contemplating the cosmos, a view on a mountain, etc.) which could shape one's worldview. i thought it was pretty obvious what i meant, but here is the original context of my claim:

you only further prove my point - biology itself is not a reason to believe in god. personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing. having a strong inner conviction that god exists is not a good reason to believe it. David Koresh had a strong inner conviction that he was the final prophet, clearly he had good reason to believe he was the final prophet then, right? one personal experience leading to the belief that muhammad was the last prophet should not be inconsistent with another's personal experience of something entirely different if these experiences have true (universal) validity.

it seemed to be pretty clear that i was speaking of spiritual/religious personal experiences, especially at the end of the paragraph. if it wasn't, i apologize. as that one line was taken out ('personal experiences prove nothing') of the paragraph i see how it could be interpreted differently than its original intent.

i stand by my claim, however, that personal (religious) experiences don't prove anything.

[reaper]

the universe appears to be expanding, and so it should die out.  the possibility of a multi-verse is being debated.  unfortuantley it looks like by nature we will not be able to detect an existance.  what does this mean?

"
One currently testable aspect of the multiverse model provides further reason to doubt its validity. In a book review published in Nature,2 George Ellis notes that in a multiverse, the geometry of this universe will be open. In more technical terms, the total density parameter, Ω, of an open universe will be less than one. However, the best measurements for our universe have Ωtotal = 1.02 +/- 0.02 (in other words, one or greater). Multiverse supporters believe that this marginally negative result will disappear as more precise measurements are made, but it is not encouraging when the first tests of a model tend toward falsification. Beyond this one test, no experimental evidence exists that would distinguish a multiverse from a universe. Until such evidence exists, nothing should compel a scientist -- or a nonscientist -- to accept a multiverse model as the final word.
"

[DaHanG]

i don't at all disagree that we should not accept the multi-verse model as the final word. you have quoted only one test from one scientist. that's the beauty of science - the evidence is constantly coming in and constantly changing our minds. there are a significant number of physicists who do believe in the multi-verse, and it is based on evidence and a TON of math. coming from an unbiased perspective, i think it would be fair to conclude that we need to keep letting the evidence come in and right now it's unclear whether or not there is a multi-verse. even if we never develop the tools to unquestionably prove whether or not the multi-verse exists, i think we will at least get a better picture of how probable/improbable the multi-verse is with time. hopefully within decades .

[reaper]

to me this only shows what's going on is probably beyond human comprehension.  also, it wouldn't mean god is unnecessary, it would just mean the formation of this universe is probable from a paticular standpoint