Do you believe in God(s)?

[otters~1]

You guys have argued for a page about an issue that I effectively addressed here:

Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200...

Yes, but we have a universe now, don't we? That argument doesn't hold water in my opinion. No matter how great the odds, it happened. Maybe it happened fifty billion times before it worked, but it happened.

The point is, the universe exists. Bit pointless to bring up in your favor to start with, incluye. Shall we move on?

[SlappyMcGee]

You guys have argued for a page about an issue that I effectively addressed here:

Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200...

Yes, but we have a universe now, don't we? That argument doesn't hold water in my opinion. No matter how great the odds, it happened. Maybe it happened fifty billion times before it worked, but it happened.

The point is, the universe exists. Bit pointless to bring up in your favor to start with, incluye. Shall we move on?

I don't think the way you addressed it was as comprehensive or as interesting as what we've said, and incluye hasn't responded yet, so no.

[jean-luc]

Footnote: The odds against the Big Bang's producing a universe (not even a livable one, just a universe that wouldn't collapse a few minutes after creation) are more than 1 in 10^200, which is something like believing one person could win a high-stakes lottery six thousand years in a row, except less plausible. How unlikely does it have to be before you stop believing in that particular event? How crazy/irrational/deluded do you have to be to think that 1. not only did matter come from nothing but 2. it had to happen about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to result in existence once? Are you serious?

Keep in mind that given that probability and an infinite period of time... the probability becomes 1. Although we have determined that the big bang occured 13.7g years ago, we have not been able to determine a way to evaluate the period of time that had passed prior to the big bang. We presume that time extends infinitely in either direction, in which case the chance of the big bang occurring is a definite 1. In fact, assuming that space and time continue infinitely in either direction (which we have evidence neither for or against, but we believe to be true because it makes the most sense in the scheme of what we can observe), there must be an infinite number of universes. The distance between these may be incomprehensibly vast, and likely is due to the low probabilities involved.
Key Fact 1: Given an infinite expanse of time and space, all things with a nonzero probability, no matter how close to zero that probability may be, will occur. In fact, they will occur an infinite number of times. The improbability argument is intrinsically invalid.

Religion, frequently by its own proclamation, is not provable. Many religions consider this a good thing, as it tests the faith further. I personally doubt the conviction of an individual that feels the need to attempt to prove a truth that they believe to transcend our realm. Which is to say, arguing that your religion is proven, when it is not, makes me wonder if you are in some ways trying to prove it to yourself. Christianity (in almost all mainstream sects) admits itself to be unprovable, a matter of faith and enlightenment by the spirit only; so stick to your guns.
Key Fact 2: Religion is, at least to the extent of human knowledge, unprovable, and usually acknowledges this. Attempts at empirical proof for religion will fail, and generally make you look bad.

Science and religion, to the greater extent, occupy separate 'realms' of knowledge. It is often said that science is the study of how, while religion is the study of why. As such, the two realms are not mutually exclusive, or even directly related. Read this one carefully:
Key Fact 3: Attempts to prove religion by disproving science are invalid. As common as this seems to have become, it will fail, and it will make you look bad.

[Viil]

No,

because i thought about, and if god created everything, who created god, and why would he be the only one with the power to create a whole evolving egosystem.

[Amadeus]

Also, I strongly believe that children... should have decent values installed in them

Speaking of values, isn't an moral atheist more so than a believer? A worshiper is moral partly (or mainly) out of fear of Hell, of punishment and eternal damnation. But an atheist is moral because he believes in morality, in treating people fairly or being honest, of kindness or of generosity. He has nothing to fear, he realizes there is no retribution for immoral deeds.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Also, I strongly believe that children... should have decent values installed in them

Speaking of values, isn't an moral atheist more so than a believer? A worshiper is moral partly (or mainly) out of fear of Hell, of punishment and eternal damnation. But an atheist is moral because he believes in morality, in treating people fairly or being honest, of kindness or of generosity. He has nothing to fear, he realizes there is no retribution for immoral deeds.

What about Christians who are good for good's sake? Because that's what is asked of them, and they are nice (and moral) enough to obey?
And what about atheists who don't have a moral compass and end up as serial killers?

[Amadeus]

Also, I strongly believe that children... should have decent values installed in them

Speaking of values, isn't an moral atheist more so than a believer? A worshiper is moral partly (or mainly) out of fear of Hell, of punishment and eternal damnation. But an atheist is moral because he believes in morality, in treating people fairly or being honest, of kindness or of generosity. He has nothing to fear, he realizes there is no retribution for immoral deeds.

What about Christians who are good for good's sake? Because that's what is asked of them, and they are nice (and moral) enough to obey?
And what about atheists who don't have a moral compass and end up as serial killers?

I never said all atheists were moral/more moral than believers, I said that often a moral atheist is moral for better reasons than a believer. For example, an moral atheist does not steal because he thinks it is disrespectful of fellow man. A believer may only refrain from theft out of fear of retribution in Hell. I am neither promoting atheists as more moral in general than religious peoples, nor am I saying believers are immoral, rather I'm attempting to overthrow popular belief that atheists are immoral... a viewpoint that many Christians firmly believe.

[SlappyMcGee]

The reason Christians don't find atheists moral is because of our morality; we deem things moral and immoral based on their effect and consequences and disrespect to people, and other concepts like that. However, Christians find things unrelated to those to be immoral; gay marriage, abortion, etc. Which isn't to say you can't see a moral viewpoint where those things are wrong rooted in reality, just that most Atheists tend to find those things acceptable and quite moral because that's what logic tends to dictate, and Christians see us thinking those things are moral when, by their minds, they clearly are not, would make us immoral.

Basically, everyone with different moral values will deem you less moral than they if you do not share the same values.

[blue_tetris]

*does shotskies with Trotsky*

[McP]

i believe in the 4 J's

Jesus, John Frusciante, Jacob Bannon, and J Mascis

all in respective order of importance.

[Fol67]

I am a man of science.

Man really should not try to comprehend the greatness and complexity of our universe.

Hmmmm......

I read that twice, then fell off my chair in stitches.

I would suggest looking for consistency in your posts.

I just lol'd

[Rose]

Oh God this thread again?


...Wait.

[SlappyMcGee]

I just lol'd

Do not revive threads unless you have anything worthwhile to say.