THE QUESTION OF WHETHER ANY GODS EXIST...

[evince]

Many atheists believe they have proven God doesn't exist and use the theory of evolution to back up their claim. The problem is none of them have ever been able to provide me with the actual picture of my great, great, great, great . . . . great, great, great . . . . grandfather they claim I evolved from millions of years ago.

in your case evolution is not a factor


your blood line never evolved

[evince]

Nah...I don't WANT there to be gods.

If there are...fine with me; if there are none...also fine.

But both sides of the question often seem so sure.

I do not see why either side is "sure."

I have no reason to believe gods or monsters exist.


the evidence of their existence is absent from anything mankind has proof of


what is a GOD?


what is monster?


we might be best served in this discussion to properly define these ideas in a mutual way.


can you give a definition for both so we can begin agreeing on what it is we are actually pondering here?

[evince]

if we cant all agree on what these things are

they cant exist

they don't exist

[evince]

Maybe we should take EVERY religions definition of god separately and examine if those separate things exist


which religion do you want to start with?

or do you just take all of their separate definitions collectively and claim that is what GODs and MONSTERS are?

[Frank Apisa]

First of all...thank you for taking the thread seriously...and for treating it seriously, Evince.

I have no reason to believe gods or monsters exist.

Neither do I.

I also have no reason to "believe" no gods or monsters exist.

the evidence of their existence is absent from anything mankind has proof of

That may or may not be correct.

what is a GOD?

For the purposes of this discussion...I think I'll use whatever you want to use (within reason). My feelings, though, are that IF A GOD EXISTS...it is a part of nature. Obviously it is a part of nature that we do not understand. But calling anything that exists outside of what exists...makes no sense to me.

what is monster?

For the purposes of this discussion...I'll use whatever you want to use . My feelings, though, are that if we limit our definition to only entities that exist here on planet Earth...we ought specify that. To say, "Unicorns seem not to exist", is substantively different from "Unicorns seem not to exist here on planet Earth." (That holds whether you define unicorn as an equine with a single horn extending from its forehead or not.)

we might be best served in this discussion to properly define these ideas in a mutual way.

I agree. Tell me if you disagree with the general comments I've made above...and we can work toward something we can both agree on.

can you give a definition for both so we can begin agreeing on what it is we are actually pondering here?

Done. I think I am willing to accept whatever you propose...unless it is off-the-wall.

[MAGA MAN]

C'mon, Ooda...you might get away with that kind of crap with an amateur...but you won't with me, because I not an amateur.

So anyway...'splain the math to us, Lucy!

Jeez...I am beginning to think YOU are an amateur.

Dude, you ax'd for anyone to prove it to you, and someone already has, mathematically, scientifically. You haven't bothered to look at the mathematical proof at the link provided, but you want me to explain it to you. What's your specific question?

[Frank Apisa]

Dude, you ax'd for anyone to prove it to you, and someone already has, mathematically, scientifically. You haven't bothered to look at the mathematical proof at the link provided, but you want me to explain it to you. What's your specific question?

My specific question?

Actually, if you read my comments...it is not an actual question. It a request.

Here is my "specific" request of you:

Explain the mathematical proof to us...unless, of course, you are just taking the word of that blog that what the guy claims he did...he actually did.

Should be no problem for you. Right? (He asked with a healthy dose of sarcasm!)

Or...you could stop the bullshit and join evince and moi in a discussion of the topic. Love to have you as part of it. You seem like you may have interesting stuff to contribute.

[evince]

Dude, you ax'd for anyone to prove it to you, and someone already has, mathematically, scientifically. You haven't bothered to look at the mathematical proof at the link provided, but you want me to explain it to you. What's your specific question?

what post number ?

[Frank Apisa]

what post number ?

He's talking about his #7.

Essentially it is Ooda, linking to a blog, that describes what Godel supposedly did (proved that GOD...a specific god...exists.) It is one of those supposed ontological proofs for the existence of god (meaning the Christian god.)

Look it over if you want...but if it doesn't seem nuts within two minutes...you have more staying power than I.

[evince]

First of all...thank you for taking the thread seriously...and for treating it seriously, Evince.



Neither do I.

I also have no reason to "believe" no gods or monsters exist.




That may or may not be correct.




For the purposes of this discussion...I think I'll use whatever you want to use (within reason). My feelings, though, are that IF A GOD EXISTS...it is a part of nature. Obviously it is a part of nature that we do not understand. But calling anything that exists outside of what exists...makes no sense to me.




For the purposes of this discussion...I'll use whatever you want to use . My feelings, though, are that if we limit our definition to only entities that exist here on planet Earth...we ought specify that. To say, "Unicorns seem not to exist", is substantively different from "Unicorns seem not to exist here on planet Earth." (That holds whether you define unicorn as an equine with a single horn extending from its forehead or not.)




I agree. Tell me if you disagree with the general comments I've made above...and we can work toward something we can both agree on.




Done. I think I am willing to accept whatever you propose...unless it is off-the-wall.

I am an atheist


in my definition ( due to the facts that are known in this momment in time) god is an idea.


it is the manifestation of how some human minds understand their existence in relevance to the world arround them.


are ideas real ?


only in the sense that someone can think them and utter them to others.


that means if you can think it or utter it is real in a sense.


that means any monster you can imagine is real in a sense


that means the gods and monsters any human (or maybe even other animals) can imagine exist in a thought form exist


Now if you want to go where a god or monster that can independently effect the world without being merely a thought passed from one to another living being we may have a problem of proof.


Gods cant exist if they cant be demonstrated to exist in a physical manner.

the same with monsters


did you know what people thought was a unicorn actually exists?


desert sheep viewed from the side.

mythical creatures


Dragons were thought to exist due to huge reptile skeletons found

imagine a person finding a nearly intact teradactile skeleton?


The Cracken was kniwn science at the time


It was a real as a cow to sailors


things like giant octopie being heaved onto a ship in a great storm and slithering off the deck back into the sea pushing men off the deck while doing so


so monsters do not exist


they are merely uneducated descriptions of unknown species


now what is GOD?


something different in each mind that conceives it


uneducated minds trying to precieve things they have no full understanding of



can it be they are each individual minds attempt to understand the very complex interwiring of the human mind?


education can effect the wiring of the mind


if you teach a child more than one language from birth that childs brain will have a more complex and advantageous language wiring system


( I Believe this is why the right hates kids knowing more than one language from birth, they are easier to manipulate and not as adept at language)



brain wiring studies have documented these improved wiring systems in childrens brains.


they have also found that GOD believers have a certain wiring that is different than nonbelievers.


that may be aguired the same way the language thing is huh.


so the fact that people BELIEVE in god has no bearing on a physical existence of God or monsters


Gods and monsters are thoughts and will be embraced by individuals depending on their brain wiring.


that means they are thoughts not physical beings

[evince]

Ever hear of Google?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/genevei...ods-existence/

r Gödel’s model uses mathematical equations that are extremely complicated, but the essence is that no greater power than God can be conceived, and if he or she is believed as a concept then he or she can exist in reality
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/genevei...MWxqDscHfxg.99



one word was all it took to dispel this idea


the math says CAN not does

[Frank Apisa]

I am an atheist


in my definition ( due to the facts that are known in this momment in time) god is an idea.


it is the manifestation of how some human minds understand their existence in relevance to the world arround them.


are ideas real ?


only in the sense that someone can think them and utter them to others.


that means if you can think it or utter it is real in a sense.


that means any monster you can imagine is real in a sense


that means the gods and monsters any human (or maybe even other animals) can imagine exist in a thought form exist


Now if you want to go where a god or monster that can independently effect the world without being merely a thought passed from one to another living being we may have a problem of proof.


Gods cant exist if they cant be demonstrated to exist in a physical manner.

the same with monsters


did you know what people thought was a unicorn actually exists?


desert sheep viewed from the side.

mythical creatures


Dragons were thought to exist due to huge reptile skeletons found

imagine a person finding a nearly intact teradactile skeleton?


The Cracken was kniwn science at the time


It was a real as a cow to sailors


things like giant octopie being heaved onto a ship in a great storm and slithering off the deck back into the sea pushing men off the deck while doing so


so monsters do not exist


they are merely uneducated descriptions of unknown species


now what is GOD?


something different in each mind that conceives it


uneducated minds trying to precieve things they have no full understanding of



can it be they are each individual minds attempt to understand the very complex interwiring of the human mind?


education can effect the wiring of the mind


if you teach a child more than one language from birth that childs brain will have a more complex and advantageous language wiring system


( I Believe this is why the right hates kids knowing more than one language from birth, they are easier to manipulate and not as adept at language)



brain wiring studies have documented these improved wiring systems in childrens brains.


they have also found that GOD believers have a certain wiring that is different than nonbelievers.


that may be aguired the same way the language thing is huh.


so the fact that people BELIEVE in god has no bearing on a physical existence of God or monsters


Gods and monsters are thoughts and will be embraced by individuals depending on their brain wiring.


that means they are thoughts not physical beings

Thank you, Evince.

I will respond to many of the things you said here, but I would like to have you extend one thing you mentioned that is nebulous.

You wrote:

I am an atheist.

Not sure what that means. It is a descriptor...a label...that means many different things to many different people.

On the question of whether any gods exist, I am an agnostic...but I use that descriptor only as a shortcut. What I actually mean is:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Please give me a better idea of your atheism...even if it is just explaining why you differ from my agnosticism.

[evince]

A theist

without theism


My beliefs do not include an all powerful all knowing being running everything


the typical description of a god


the word God is not really defined the same from one religion to another

[evince]

there are world religions that don't need a god

they currently exist and people believe them as deeply as the god centered ones most people think of.


existance does not require an all powerful being to make sense and function

[evince]

an agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena, a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


I don't believe God is anything beyond a concept

I have never seen anything in my 60 years to point to a physical existence of god


there are gases that I have never seen, smelt, tasted, felt or been effected by.


there is evidence they exist even though I have never encountered them.


Not the same with god huh


I cant believe in God simply because somone I may even love insists god came to them.


It can be perfectly explained by their mind wiring.


I would need to see the science that proves that gas indeed exists on planet X34B and is provable by light refraction.

science is far more reliable than monsters