Forumwarz is the first "Massively Single-Player" online RPG completely built around Internet culture.

You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.

You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.

Log in or Learn about Forumwarz

Civil Discussion
Switch to Role-Playing Civil Discussion
Religion If God doesn't exist..

Jean Luc Pic-
ard

Avatar: 139690 Mon Mar 30 04:12:04 -0400 2009

[Starfleet Command]

Level 4 Camwhore

“Like a Virgin”

I think this is an important philosophical question, indeed. It may, or may not be, answered in my time. However, I hope the Q had nothing to do with it!

Jean Luc Picard edited this message on 09/04/2009 5:52PM

Catt although

MODERATOR
Avatar: 46806 2013-08-07 00:24:18 -0400
115

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Troll

Last Catt Standing

Ricket Posted:

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wrote “God’s Debris” which suggests that an omniscient, omnipotent god annihilated himself, as it knew everything except its own nonexistence, which resulted in the Big Bang.

Read it – Mr. Adams can be very interesting at times. Although that is not exactly the same as having a creator with finite abilities and a finite life span. I’ve talked to people who can’t seem to reconcile their own feelings, and say “I usually don’t feel there is a God, but I also cannot believe thing got this way by accident”. To them I’ve proposed the theory I mentioned before. Just because there was a creator doesn’t imply the existence of an all-powerful being or afterlife, both of which are much more unlikely concepts in my view. (Just to be clear I don’t believe in a creator myself)

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

Hobart Bliggity Posted:

Question to all the atheists out there. Why are many of you so fervent in trying to disprove God?

We see religion getting their time in the public space, we disagree with them, therefore we want some of the spotlight on the atheist side too so that we aren’t misrepresented and slandered by the religious nuts (not all religious people are nuts… some of them are fruits, some are neither, but there’s definitely plenty of nuts).

male reproductive organing balls, double post when I’m sure I clicked edit… delete the first one?

man-man edited this message on 09/04/2009 5:55PM

Jalapeno Boo-
tyhole

MODERATOR
Avatar: 44 2012-11-06 12:31:55 -0500

[Crotch Zombie]

Level 44 Emo Kid

Happy fifth anniversary, Forumwarz! :pumpaul:

MC Banhammer Posted:

I don’t believe there is one, at this point in human history. Even evolution is a theory. I doubt anyone could prove conclusively that there is a deity who created the universe, any more than one could prove conclusively that there is NOT a deity who created the universe.

Which is all actually a different discussion than what I believe the OP intended. If I may be so bold as to reword it, I think he’s asking “If there is no deity who created the universe, then where did the universe come from?”

MCB, I’m a little disappointed in this response.

“Even evolution is a theory.” I’m not pedagogue or anything, but I think you should at least look at this.

(And also, as has been already mentioned, that whole Pascal’s Wager thing.)

Moniker

Avatar: 132630 Thu Mar 26 18:33:33 -0400 2009
1

[7 VIBRATING DOLDOES]

Level 35 Troll

“Problem Child IV”

Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:

MCB, I’m a little disappointed in this response.

“Even evolution is a theory.”

I forgot to take issue with this. Thank you, JB.

EDIT: Clarification, believe it or not.

Moniker edited this message on 09/04/2009 5:58PM

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:

MCB, I’m a little disappointed in this response.

“Even evolution is a theory.” I’m not pedagogue or anything, but I think you should at least look at this.

(And also, as has been already mentioned, that whole Pascal’s Wager thing.)

???

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_scientific_laws_or_theories_have_been_proven_wrong

The Large Hadron Collider experiment exists to either prove or disprove a scientific theory.

It used to be believed than an atom was the smallest particle.

As new evidence and research comes to light, more discoveries are made which put other theories into place, displacing other ones. Are you saying that evolution is immune to further discoveries?

Ricket

MODERATOR
Avatar: 4300 2011-11-01 00:56:47 -0400
100

[The Scrotal Safety-
Commission
]

Level 69 Troll

Good poster, upvoted.

Jalapeno Bootyhole Posted:

MCB, I’m a little disappointed in this response.

“Even evolution is a theory.” I’m not pedagogue or anything, but I think you should at least look at this.

(And also, as has been already mentioned, that whole Pascal’s Wager thing.)

Wow, how did I miss MCB saying that on my first read through this thread?

Moniker

Avatar: 132630 Thu Mar 26 18:33:33 -0400 2009
1

[7 VIBRATING DOLDOES]

Level 35 Troll

“Problem Child IV”

MC Banhammer Posted:

Are you saying that evolution is immune to further discoveries?

I don’t think anyone has said that, ever. What has been said is that the preponderance of evidence (genetic, fossil, geological, etc.) supports the theory, and it is exceedingly unlikely that it could ever be disproven.

Moniker edited this message on 09/04/2009 6:03PM

Flying Spagh-
etti Monster

Avatar: 138324 Fri Mar 13 00:32:50 -0400 2009

Level 22 Hacker

The Omnipotent Pasta

Spaghetti

Flying Spaghetti Monster edited this message on 09/04/2009 6:09PM

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

Moniker Posted:

I don’t think anyone has said that, ever. What has been said is that the preponderance of evidence (genetic, fossil, geological, etc.) supports the theory, and it is exceedingly unlikely that it could ever be disproven.

Exceedingly unlikely <> impossible.

I think it’s quite likely that in another, say, thousand years, people will be talking about “That Darwin, whose theories were sound given the technology of the time, but now of course we realize he was wrong, because 50 years ago we discovered <xxxx> which now shows the flaw in his argument.”

The argument I am making here is that a preponderance of evidence is not proof. Take for example the preponderance of evidence in ancient times that the sun, moon, and stars rotate around the earth. How could they NOT believe that? Because their tools were limited. I don’t believe we’re discovered everything yet, nor that our tools are as good as they are ever going to be.

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

I always think the underlying problem in these discussions, are that we’re attempting to use language, that developed out of a way of telling other monkeys where the good fruit was, to describe the complexities of time and space.

Moniker

Avatar: 132630 Thu Mar 26 18:33:33 -0400 2009
1

[7 VIBRATING DOLDOES]

Level 35 Troll

“Problem Child IV”

MC Banhammer Posted:

The argument I am making here is that a preponderance of evidence is not proof.

The preponderance of evidence currently points to a heliocentric solar system. It could be disproved by future discoveries. But I will not be holding my breath. Will you?

Moniker edited this message on 09/04/2009 6:11PM

MC Banhammer

Avatar: 1887 2011-07-31 00:40:59 -0400
36

[Good Omens]

Level 69 Troll

Trying to create drama to drum up the ratings by any means necessary!

Moniker Posted:

The preponderance of evidence currently points to a heliocentric solar system. It could be disproved by future discoveries. But I will not be holding my breath. Will you?

I won’t be holding my breath for any future discoveries which would change widely-held current scientific beliefs, because history suggests that I will be dead long before that happens.

What you’re seemingly failing to realize is that your argument above could have been worded, 5000 years ago, as “The preponderance of evidence currently points to a Earth-centric solar system. It could be disproved by future discoveries. But I will not be holding my breath. Will you?” And it was only what, 4000 years later that this was first challenged in a meaningful way?

And when it comes right down to it, whether all objects move around the Earth, the sun, or most likely around a singular point, is irrelevant in my day-to-day life, and over the entire course of my life. Same thing with evolution. But my relationship with my Diety — that impacts me every minute of every day. Where do you suggest I put my energies?

Shii

Avatar: 23167 2010-01-24 16:31:18 -0500
27

[Phantasmagoric Spl-
endor
]

Level 35 Emo Kid

I haven't seen a bad idea that I didn't like.

Moniker Posted:

Most of what I’d like to to say has already been said here, so this will likely be short.

OverclockedJesus and man-man put it succinctly. “Who made the universe” begs the question, and it’s illogical to stop an infinite regress by making up something out of whole cloth.

Shii, you attempt to solve this problem by defining something outside of nature, which is irrational on the very face of it. As there is nothing outside nature which has even approached demonstrability, let alone a “supernatural creator” to whom one might ascribe a number of other characteristics, it is wholly unscientific to bumume such a thing exists. We do, however, know that the universe exists – so with the data we’ve got at hand, it makes the most sense to bumume that it has always been around and always will be.

Finally, there was no “before” the universe, because the universe exists in no less than four dimensions. I’m talking about time, here. To say something like “before” the universe or “after” the universe is a non-sequitur of the very worst kind, in the same way “outside” or “past” the universe is absurd.

These questions boil down, ultimately, to faith. Faith is an unsubstantiated belief; something which one holds to be true in spite of a lack of evidence. There is evidence for the universe, clearly, and so it behooves us not to make things up which would violate all known laws of physics. We leave that to quantum mechanics.

QED.

If I’ve screwed something up, it’s the beer talking, and I hope someone will correct me. It’s just that I find first cause arguments to be so ridiculous as to be unworthy of extensive thought.

The problems with your line of reasoning are that 1. I’m trying to convince you to believe what I do, and 2. that I’m examining this situation from a logic-driven, scientific standpoint.

When there is a situation that is unprovable either way, you can argue til you’re blue in the face and have no further proof for your side than your opponent does. You can claim that the universe has always existed and I will continue to believe what I do, and neither of us will ever persuade the other.

Catt although

MODERATOR
Avatar: 46806 2013-08-07 00:24:18 -0400
115

[Brainfreeze]

Level 69 Troll

Last Catt Standing

Shii Posted:

neither of us will ever persuade the other.

that’s only a theory.

Moniker

Avatar: 132630 Thu Mar 26 18:33:33 -0400 2009
1

[7 VIBRATING DOLDOES]

Level 35 Troll

“Problem Child IV”

MC Banhammer Posted:

5000 years ago,

We didn’t have modern science 5,000 years ago.

EDIT: Or science at all, for that matter. We did have theology, though.

Moniker edited this message on 09/04/2009 6:32PM

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

MC Banhammer Posted:

But my relationship with my Diety — that impacts me every minute of every day. Where do you suggest I put my energies?

I dunno… you could put some energy into improving your spelling.

I say that, knowing there’s a ****up involving a plural and a verb in my last post.

Or you could put your “energies” into trying to improve scientific understanding… I don’t know if you’ve got the education for that, but you could be some sort of medical guinea pig, that’d be helping a bit.

That or work for a better future (South Park clip, probably not safe for work or other “can’t take a joke” environments)

Moniker

Avatar: 132630 Thu Mar 26 18:33:33 -0400 2009
1

[7 VIBRATING DOLDOES]

Level 35 Troll

“Problem Child IV”

Shii Posted:

When there is a situation that is unprovable either way, you can argue til you’re blue in the face and have no further proof for your side than your opponent does.

I don’t need to prove anything, Shii. You do. You make a positive claim for the existence of god, and you have to support it with evidence. If there is no evidence, then it is silly for you to believe, and even more ridiculous for you to try to convince me to believe.

-MLF-

Avatar: 83146 Sun Jan 18 18:56:12 -0500 2009
6

Level 60 Hacker

“Cracking Addict”

Moniker Posted:

We didn’t have modern science 5,000 years ago.

In 5,000 years people will look back and say “We didn’t have modern science 5,000 years ago.”

man-man

Avatar: 156485 2010-01-24 16:36:14 -0500
24

[Harem and Sushi Bar]

Level 69 Hacker

Selfish fine upstanding member of society

Moniker Posted:

I don’t need to prove anything, Shii. You do. You make a positive claim for the existence of god, and you have to support it with evidence. If there is no evidence, then it is silly for you to believe, and even more ridiculous for you to try to convince me to believe.

When he said “The problems with your line of reasoning are that 1. I’m trying to convince you to believe what I do, and 2. that I’m examining this situation from a logic-driven, scientific standpoint.” he meant he wasn’t trying to convince you, and wasn’t examining the situation from a logic-driven scientific standpoint.

Internet Delay Chat
Have fun playing!
To chat with other players, you must Join Forumwarz or Log In now!