Buy Brownie Points
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

Viewing a Post

DarkDespair5

Avatar: 77864 Thu Jun 04 08:28:46 -0400 2009

Level 56 Hacker

“Logic Bomber”

Professor Falken Posted:

(I doubt any of the anti-religious nuts (which are just as bad as religious nuts) will take note of this, but it’s still worth a try.)

You can not objectively prove or disprove the existence of “God” or a “soul” AS A CONCEPT IN GENERAL. This is why:

You can not clearly and objectively define what these terms even mean. That’s a fact – just look at the sheer amount of religions, sects and interpretations. You’d be lucky if you get a matching definition from two people of the same religion.

If a theory can not be worded exactly, it can not be disproved (or proved, but you can’t prove a theory anyway). That’s a fact, too: How would you try to (dis)prove “X + Y = SOMETHING”? And if the theory you’re trying to prove is not objective… it’s the same with the data you find. If the basic underlining theory can be disputed and is open to interpretation… so is the evidence you can find. A “fuzzy” theory cannot be validated… or falsified. Boolean logic simply doesn’t WORK here.

We have no idea what “God” even is + We cannot do anything with an unclear defined theory -> Religious discussion from a rational point of view is ultimately futile.

QED.

You could probably disprove certain ridiculous definitions such as those that include omnipotence or omniscience.

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