Everyone start laughing at them.

[spookymooky]

Apparently the burden of proof lies on my, though you must refute all these arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Existence_of_God/Franc's_Fork

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another (Stöckl, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie, II, 82 sqq.). God's existence, then, cannot be proved--Jacobi, like Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality--it must be felt by the mind.
In his Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher (d. 1834), who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are unessential (Stöckl, loc. cit., 199 sqq.).
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the Divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against Modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore His existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of Creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

^^^This isnt the basis of the links, it's a subset of one which I didnt post as it was too large.

(Just happened to run across this, it's the technical name for the Flying Spaghetti Monster argumemt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HRG's_cat
Look, I'm not saying God exists. I do not believe this to be the case. I do require proof of his nonexistence before he can be ruled out, however. Also, this is not the topic here, whether ID should be taught in schools is. I'm not going to respond anymore regarding God's existence, so take your last pot shots at this, then let's move on.

 

[bliink]

There is absolutely no reason for there to be a god.

The existence of our universe proves only that our universe exists, not that god exists.

End.

A worthy application of Occam's Razor

 

[Absinthe]

Apparently the burden of proof lies on my, though you must refute all these arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Existence_of_God/Franc's_Fork

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

Wow... this is the ultimate exercise in pointlessness since every one of those has a "Critiques & Objections" section.

I also don't appreciate your flooding technique when it comes to arguments. If you can't explain something, don't bury your opposition with external links, because then you're doing nothing but parroting information and prove yourself incapable of making an argument yourself.

 

[spookymooky]

I'm not making the arguments. I'm saying that they exist. My point is that rational arguments show that religion can be rational.

Probably shouldnt have posted in response to that, but I want to make sure that this is very clear: I'm not trying to prove that God exists, as my own thinking tells me this not to be the case. I want to show that religion can be rational.

I also realize I will not sway you, just as you will not sway me; that's the nature of people: to believe what we want to believe. While we might persuade a few others on the forum, I would be very surprised if either of us were to change our position in this sort of debate.

 

[Absinthe]

EDIT: Never mind. I have no urge to get into an epistemological argument right now.

 

[OCybrManO]

EDIT: Never mind. I have no urge to get into an epistemological argument right now.

Likewise, I just wrote up about 1000 words of a post about histories of various world religions, psychological theories on the origins of religion, evidence for evolution, the changing nature of the teachings of every religion, the conflicting views within the New Testament over who Jesus was and what Jesus did, and a bunch of other crap... then, I thought, "I don't really care about religion... why am I writing this? More specifically, why post it on halflife2.net? It's a huge waste of time." So, instead, I'm going to take the time I save and use it to squeeze out a quick one...

 

[bliink]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

Cosmological Argument:

1. Everything has a cause.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. Everything is caused by another thing.
4. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
5. There must be a first cause.
6. God was the first cause.

Point five is circular, and is in conflict with point two.

Another alternate argument to this;
Point four on this is disputable. Firstly because you cannot prove that a casual chain exists in the formation of the universe. Secondly because the existance of infinity in the physical world is proven by the law of thermodynamics, in which its shown that energy cannot be removed and would countinue infinitely.


Teleological argument:

1. X is too complex to have occurred randomly or naturally.
2. Therefore, X must have been created by an intelligent being.
3. Y is that intelligent being.
4. Therefore, Y exists.

How can Y create something more complex than itself, then? unless Z created Y? in which case, who created Z? This is also a violation of the Ontological argument.
This is a logical fallacy due to the flaw in the first point. It is plainly illustrated in established science that complex things can evolve naturally, through natural selection and evolution, chemical reactions, etc. Its basic science.

Ontological argument:

1) God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2) The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3) God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4) The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5) If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6) from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7) Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true).

This is a philosophical argument that god can be comprehended to exist in reality. The logic in it is circular and relies upon the first point being true. The first point cannot be verified or otherwise found to be true by anyone or anything, and so, we can't use the argument to develop a logical proof.

It is a violation of the teleological argument

Thats all I can think of about those for now.
This is a good site for logic: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
I'm sure I broke some rules.

I dont see anything above that isnt based on faith to begin with, heresay, or logical puzzles without any observable science.

 

[Link]

As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"

Yes is sodding well is:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Translation for those of you (mis)educated at a Kansas school...
Studying the natural world for explinations as to why things are the way they are, i.e. natural sodding phenomena. Arrogance. You can't rewrite pre-defined defenitions just because they happen to make you look stupid.



As to people that are pissed off at people mocking their religion. Why? You must accept that people that do not believe will always view you in the same way as you view people who worship Absinthe's spoon. Faith and worship for anything not cultuarlly acceptable is considered insanity. Why are your faiths accepted? Because enough people have faith...

 

[spookymooky]

Likewise, I just wrote up about 1000 words of a post about histories of various world religions, psychological theories on the origins of religion, evidence for evolution, the changing nature of the teachings of every religion, the conflicting views within the New Testament over who Jesus was and what Jesus did, and a bunch of other crap... then, I thought, "I don't really care about religion... why am I writing this? More specifically, why post it on halflife2.net? It's a huge waste of time." So, instead, I'm going to take the time I save and use it to squeeze out a quick one...

Well, if you have it saved, mind pming it to me? I don't want to dispute it, just curious as to what you wrote. This kind of stuff tends to interest me.

 

[xLostx]

my girl is so smart, go bliink go

 

[bliink]

my girl is so smart, go bliink go

plz stop that. kthx.

 

[MiccyNarc]

Here's a website that some of you may be interested in:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/skeptics.html

 

[Absinthe]

Here's a website that some of you may be interested in:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/skeptics.html

I took a glance and it said something about an atheist worldview. I then closed it because it because there atheism is not a worldview.

 

[MiccyNarc]

I took a glance and it said something about an atheist worldview. I then closed it because it because there atheism is not a worldview.

Something told me you'd do something along those lines. Worth a shot anyway.

 

[Absinthe]

I'll be a bit more honest. I've given it a bit more of a glance and I'm still seeing a lot of rhetoric, circular reasoning using the Bible, and misrepresentations.

I'll give it a better look at some later point, but I doubt it holds anything I haven't read already.

 

[spookymooky]

How do you think the universe in its present form came into being, Absinthe?

 

[Absinthe]

How do you think the universe in its present form came into being, Absinthe?

I don't pretend to know.

 

[Nat Turner]

How do you think the universe in its present form came into being, Absinthe?

God happened to sneeze at the exact same time that Allah vomitted.

 

[spookymooky]

I don't pretend to know.

But you rule our intelligent design?

 

[Nat Turner]

But you rule our intelligent design?

It's not hard to rule out something with a 0.1% likelihood.

 

[spookymooky]

It's not hard to rule out something with a 0.1% likelihood.

If I flipped a thousand-sided die, and came up with a 1, it wouldnt be impossible.

 

[Nat Turner]

If I flipped a thousand-sided die, and came up with a 1, it wouldnt be impossible.

So you're saying because you can't absolutely rule it out, it should be believed or presented? Should you present every other weird scenario you can think off the top of your head too?

 

[Absinthe]

But you rule our intelligent design?

I don't rule it out. I just don't think there's any reason to buy into it.

If a creator being exists, it exists independently of any evidence or lack thereof. The same can be said for a multitude of things. But they are meaningless if we cannot find good reason to believe in them. ID, as it stands, is pseudoscience charading as a legitimate theory. It makes a lot of assumptions and horribly warps science to fit around it. The comparison to the Flying Spaghetti Monster couldn't be more apt.

Spooky, I think that the universe is literally a giant cosmic dinner plate and that we will be harpooned by a giant fork and shoved into the mouth of large gluttonous entity within the next thousand years. Is my belief a legitimate topic ripe for teaching in the public education system?

 

[spookymooky]

So you're saying because you can't absolutely rule it out, it should be believed or presented? Should you present every other weird scenario you can think off the top of your head too?

If it's widely accepted, I think it is alright to mention and explain it. I do not think it's alright to teach anything we don't know for sure as complete fact. And that includes pretty much anything other than math.

 

[Nat Turner]

Do you understand what science is? You make logical or mathematical models from empirical evidence as a means to understand the universe and create theories. ID has no evidence. It is a random notion, not a theory.

 

[Nat Turner]

If it's widely accepted, I think it is alright to mention and explain it. I do not think it's alright to teach anything we don't know for sure as complete fact. And that includes pretty much anything other than math.

Sure it's ok to mention it and explain it, but in a politics or religion class, not a science class. It isn't science.

 

[spookymooky]

Do you understand what science is? You make logical or mathematical models from empirical evidence as a means to understand the universe and create theories. ID has no evidence. It is a random notion, not a theory.

The fact that matter/energy/time exists could be evidence towards ID. The fact that the universe is organized into laws. Not proof, but evidence.

 

[Nat Turner]

The fact that matter/energy/time exists could be evidence towards ID. The fact that the universe is organized into laws. Not proof, but evidence.

No, that's not evidence. That's just a random notion. And popular opinion doesn't make something evidence. For hundreds of years, popular opinion once forced everyone to teach that the sun went around the Earth. Doesn't make it true.

 

[Absinthe]

What Nat said. What you are describing is not evidence. You are only baselessly attributing natural phenomena to a creator being, as well as anthropomorphizing God (which is a sticky enough issue as it is). You make the implication that because the universe has laws (defined by humans, I should add), there is reason to believe there is some kind of lawmaker. But that is not the case.

 

[Top Secret]

Keep the Religion Bashing to yourself. Its really starting to bug me.

You tell people to keep their religion to themselves, and I'll keep the bashing to myself. It's really starting to bother me.

Capice?

 

[Neo_Kuja]

If I flipped a thousand-sided die, and came up with a 1, it wouldnt be impossible.

I believe this universe is *inside* the eye of a giant chicken roaming along the intergalactic highways using solar wind as a surfing tool.

^ The above statement cannot be proved or disapproved therefore it is substantial. Add it to all the other "substantial" theorys out there and it'll be one out of a infinite number of theorys. Therefore, the chance of it being true is one over infinity. Therefore it MUST be true !

 

[bliink]

If it's widely accepted, I think it is alright to mention and explain it.

Firstly, your claim that things should be accepted because you cant prove otherwise is a bit of broken logic known as "Argumentum ad ignorantiam". It is an argument that suggests a certain thing is true because there is no proof to the contrary. It is no basis for an argument. Wholly illegitimate.

Secondly, your point that I have quoted is also broken logic- "Argumentum ad numerum" is what its called. An assertion that the more people believe something, the more valid it is. Which is not the case.

 

[xLostx]

DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

[Beerdude26]

DOES NOT COMPUTE

You're going to get banned for those pictures one day, you're just lucky they're hilarious

Oh, and as right about everyone in this thread said : ID = Teh suck.