God

[talontsi]

I dont if this has been discussed in the past, but I want to bring up my point that God is not real and was only made up so humans could have something to believe in.

To me now, it seems ridiculus to go to church and worship some invisible supreme being. It's basically like people going there and talking to themselves.
It's not that I am encouraging everyone who believes in god to disbelieve (that would be hard to accomplish) its just that if you look to science almost everything is explained logically. With the bible its all based on you believing, with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.

What are your veiws?

[V.S.]

'how original'


honestly, do you enjoy trolling?

[talontsi]

If by trolling you mean wandering, I don't wander, I think its a waste of time to make up a supreme being just to have something to cling to.

I am perfectly fine. How bout you?

[V.S.]

I meant trolling in the "blatantly posting just to get replies" sort of way


I can't believe your first post was sincere

[fritz_269]

Originally posted by talontsi
with science its all presented clean and cut, making it very incontrovertible.

Hardly! That right there is a belief as unfounded as the belief in god you criticize.

I'm not sure you appreciate the philosophy of science. Try reading some Karl Popper: http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/

Because the word 'God' means many things to many people, I frequently reply [to people who ask 'Do you believe in God?'] by asking what the questioner means by 'God.' To my surprise, this response is often considered puzzling or unexpected: 'Oh, you know, God. Everyone knows who God is.' Or 'Well, kind of a force that is stronger than we are and that exists everywhere in the universe.' There are a number of such forces. One of them is called gravity, but it is not often identified with God. And not everyone does know what is meant by 'God.'...Whether we believe in God depends very much on what we mean by God.

My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species.

-Carl Sagan "A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291.

[V.S.]

fritz_269, do you really think he's serious?

[talontsi]

I am just trying to start a intelligent conversation. Also I want to see what people think.

Yes, I'm serious. What would I gain from excessive replies? Not much, except for more input.

[00GSR]

I'll be the first to admit that my idea of God is pretty different. I believe in a God with a long white beard, a gold crown, and a long robe with lots of shiny jewels on it. He sits on a big throne in the clouds, and He's about five hundred feet tall. He talks in a real deep voice like "I...AM...GOD!" He can blow up stuff just by looking at it. This is my own, personal idea of God.

-Jack Handey






Sorry, I had to do it

[talontsi]

yes, thats exactly what I'm looking for, thats what I want from everyone.

[V.S.]

the original post just seems too simple and generic to be sincere, imo. fritz pointed out just one of the things that jumped out at me. I mean, its fine if thats what you believe and that's the full extent of your opinion, but it just doesn't seem like you care enough about it(from the post) to bother starting a conversation. Have you ever spent a solid 15sec even thinking about your belief in science?

just for the record, I don't have any views that are relevant in this thread

[Moppie]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah


Oh gee another god thread! dosnt anyone have any real philosophy they want to discuss.






Fritz I was just thinking about sending you Brocas Brain after I finnished it. I found it in a 2nd hand book store the other day, and thought it looked interesting. What did you think of it?

[higgimonster]

fritz_269 said:

Hardly! That right there is a belief as unfounded as the belief in god you criticize.

(bear with me, not used to the quote system here )

I don't really understand what you mean? Popper clearly said that the only way a theory can be regarded true is that if it is falseifiable (able to be false). All current scientific theories can be proven false simply by finding signifigant evidence against it. The theory of God (as seen through the eyes of believers) is not fallible. It is to circular and does not allow the ability to ask question and get a good response in return.

I have read popper before this post and I agree with most all of what he says, but I am a little confused about what you are referring to.

Mabey if you are talking about the exact statement made by talontsi I agree with you, but that stance is the lawyer's stance: Look for some part of the stement that devalidates it. Because he sadi "incontroversial" his statement cannot be considered a 'Popper' theory.

[talontsi]

incontrovertible* just to be accurate.

[higgimonster]

my bad

[AEstud]

are we dicussing god or giving negative criticism on how insencere talontsi's post is? Don't rip on talon even I believe he is wrong. Lets talk about what this post's subject is.

No one has to agree with me but whatever makes you happy.:bandit: