Norwegian Scientists Disprove God

[Sander]

And nothing god does can leed to evil

Where did it say that? Perhaps we're just an army of dolls to God, perhaps he's testing us, perhaps he doesn't even exist. Whatever it is, I doubt anyone will find out.

Anf or all those immature atheists out there who think they know things: Get a life, science doesn't even BEGIN to disprove god, and there's no use or dignity or value in arguing about someone's belief. That's why it's belief. They have the right to freely believe whatever they want, if they want to believe that God is a green super-mutant with a turbo-plasma rifle, LET THEM. You have NOTHING to do with what they believe, and coming here to talk about it wil not help you. I think you're just looking for confirmation that there is no god. Well, guess what, you won't find it, since it's impossible to disprove the existence of god.

EDIT: Also, Loxley, you can't know what evil IS in the eyes of a hypothetical god, since all you know are your own moral codes, and you can't know whether they are right or not...

 

[megatron]

Well why have good or evil if a bunch of people die before they're even out of the womb? If God is so...godly, why not stop suffering and all that shit just so people can feel good about themselves? I see no-reason for cancer or aids to exist, why not have diseases that make you really happy or improve your health?

Humanity has gotten along fine without god. I don't need some dude to help me cross the street or wish someone better because praying never works. Mabye positive thinking, but that's not god that's just your mind playing trix on u :O

Which is the right god to follow anyway? Everyone can't be right about their god, and the after-life so who can judge who's right at the end?

Most of the stories in the bible don't make sense anyway. The end of the world seems to happen about 4 times, everything on the planet came from a couple and why would some guy die for our sins? God let his son die so he can help us? It doesn't make any sense, why not just stop evil things from happening instead of some bullshit that doesn't make any sense?

 

[Malky]

Humanity has gotten along fine without god.

I think that's the single most laughable thing I've read in this thread, so far.

-Malk

 

[Brother None]

Ok, a few points.

1. There is no reason to consider if God or the universe "started out somewhere" or "what was before God". If God exists, it might be safe to assume he's always been there. Now infinity is something the human mind can't grasp, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's always so cute, the human mind can't grasp something, hence it's impossible for it to exist. Geeeee. Man, talk about runaway arrogance.

As for the Big Bang, that's another case. It would also be pointless to ask "what was there before the big bang", because before the Big Bang, there was no time. Without Time/Change, there's less than nothing. "Nothing" as far as humans can grasp it, doesn't exist without Time. There simply "was not" before the Big Bang, i.e. less than nothing (whilst if you go outside the borders of the Universe, there would in fact be nothing, and not the no-nothing of before the Big Bang)

Also; "before the Big Bang" is a strange statement, since there is no before the big bang, but you know what I mean

Except if the theory of multiple big bangs is true, but that's another matter.

2. "Why did God create evil", "If God is so...godly, why not stop suffering and all that shit just so people can feel good about themselves?"

Come on, please, it's not such a hard concept to grasp.

How exactly would you tell it's day if it never was night?

How would you be able to say you're having fun if you're always having fun?

How do you discover you're experiencing pleasure if you never experience pain?

Pain is a necessary part of human existence. Even the dope-head makers of the Matrix grasped this concept when they said the first Matrix was too good for humanity. This idea stems from the Biblical Garden of Eden. Adam didn't really pluck the apple because he and Eve were evil, but because there is no way they could survive the Good of the Garden.

This is a really simple concept. A world with no suffering is simply not imagineable, it just wouldn't work. God, if he exists, understands this, it's that simple.

Also, the whole "God gave man free will" thing is always of infinite amusement to me. Antropocentrism, you gotta love it.

3. Stay civil, people, especially you, megatron.

 

[JJ86]

Actually all arguments about god are pointless. Nobody can begin to comprehend anything about him if he is existant. That goes for christians as well as nonbelievers. Christians are not closer to him than anyone just because they read some old book or worship in a musty building on a downtown street.

If .... god has no physical form, we are not in his image, the bible is a sham made to scare people in a different time. If god wanted to communicate to us without ambiguity he would not create a written tome, he would have a "wire" in our heads and we'd be receiving broadcasts 24/7. He is not pulling the switches, the switches are pulled. All is written and we have no choice. You can't do more than what has been written, so just "go with the flow" and act the script. Puzzles are for old people, tricks are for kids. You are what you are and no one will ever take that away....

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Actually all arguments about god are pointless. Nobody can begin to comprehend anything about him if he is existant. That goes for christians as well as nonbelievers. Christians are not closer to him than anyone just because they read some old book or worship in a musty building on a downtown street.

Ah, so you can speak for my feelings when I was an atheist and since I've been a Christian?

If .... god has no physical form, we are not in his image, the bible is a sham made to scare people in a different time.

God has a physical form, similar to ours but perfected (this is the belief of my denomination).

If god wanted to communicate to us without ambiguity he would not create a written tome, he would have a "wire" in our heads and we'd be receiving broadcasts 24/7.

He has what is known as the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost that does so much more than a "wire in our heads" could do, unless the wire could convey great emotions along with it (and not just through words).

He is not pulling the switches, the switches are pulled. All is written and we have no choice. You can't do more than what has been written, so just "go with the flow" and act the script. Puzzles are for old people, tricks are for kids. You are what you are and no one will ever take that away....

He has pulled some of the switches and allows us to pull some of them too. If we have no choice, then why is there even a need in this lifetime to take the gospel to others if we are predestined. We have a choice, and we can change our path.

Also, the whole "God gave man free will" thing is always of infinite amusement to me. Antropocentrism, you gotta love it.

Care to elaborate a little more? I know you are agnostic, so that comment really sounds a bit odd coming from you. Free agency is a large factor in my denomination. This life is a test to see where we go in the next. If we don't have free agency, what kind of test would it be? If the teacher scores your test before you take it, why take it seriously?

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

I've noticed that many of you, "I won't believe it until I see it" people have failed to answer one question I've asked a few times. In fact, the only person who answered it was Kharn (though he was a bit ambiguous if memory serves me right).

Do you believe that other intelligent life exists that is not from earth?

This seems to be turning into a debate of convenience. Some of you are conveniently ignoring points/questions.

 

[JJ86]

Oh, he's setting us up, what a tricky dicky!

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Oh, he's setting us up, what a tricky dicky!

When you can't win the battle, turn and run like hell.

I made the reason I'm asking this quite clear. Your evasion of the question undermines your credibility of arguement.

I know, it sucks to make a statement and then to find out that you only apply your beliefs where it is most comfortable for you and you are being called out on it (or to dodge the question to avoid it).

So obviously, you guys (the "prove it before I believe it" people) don't believe that in the vast universe that we inhabit there is obviously no other intelligent life (or life for that matter, even the micro-organisms they've found from 'objects' originating off of earth aren't conclusive since many think it may have become 'contaminated' while on earth) out there.

If you don't think that, well, I have a newsflash for you. You are exercising faith in something that can't be seen or proven by science to exist or not to exist.

Sounds kind of familiar huh?

 

[Sander]

First, Kharn: I was talking about nothing as in NOTHING absolutely nothing, not a single type of existence, this would include time...

Also, Tone, I didn't respond to your question because I thought it was useless and had little to do with the question itself, if you want an answer: Yes, I find it highly unlikely that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but then again, I never said that God couldn't exist

Let's put it like this, then, shall we:

it is futile and pointless to debate about religion, asking about one's religion can be good, but telling one that they're stupid because they believe something(Megatron) or don't believe something(Some of the religious people) is silly, since it is ALL about belief.
Belief is a concept that is unchangeable, if there is no evidence that can be grasped, there is no way in which you can change someones mind. Sure, YOU might've had that special experience with God, but who is to say that it wasn't a hallucination, or something else? Please, don't see that remark as an insult, but it is impossible for others to see what it was like and how it happened. There is no need to explain how something like that happened, because people will only believe you if they want.

IN short: Discussing religion and belief is useless, since nothing can be gained from it(everyone _will_ stick to their own personal beliefs), except for fear, hate, contempt and animosity.

One thing you CAN do is say what you stand for, but then if someone else replies and starts to discuss things with you, you're undoubtedly in a position that will probably lead to negative feelings for one another.

 

[Gwydion]

IN short: Discussing religion and belief is useless, since nothing can be gained from it(everyone _will_ stick to their own personal beliefs), except for fear, hate, contempt and animosity.

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, but that was the point. These people claimed to have evidence that God exists, or that they've reasoned it out when it was really nothing more than a simple choice with no good reason behind it.

 

[Sander]

Then please leave them to their point, I've no trouble with debates or anything of the kind, but this will lead to nothing, those people will stick to their guns, and no amount of reasoning from you or anyone else will change that...

 

[Gwydion]

No thank you. I rather enjoy this. Feel free not to read the thread anymore.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

There would have to be something there in order for it to implode. Nothing doesn't just implode into something.

Actually, not trying to prove or disprove the argument, but this statement is incorrect. Scientists have proven that matter is sometimes spontaneously created from nothingness, most often near the edges of black holes (and thus, how a black hole can actually *shrink*). At the same time, an equal amount of antimatter will spew off in the opposite direction until it collides with another piece of matter and annihilate them both.

Of course, with the time argument, of "What happened before God," then we are thinking in terms of only our human limitations. Time itself is a concept in which we understand little. For instance, we can only measure time linearly, however, Einstein has proven this to be incorrect (and before anybody interjects, this aspect of the Theory of Relativity has been proven). If anybody cares to hear a bunch of technical jargon, I can give some people my own theories about the flow of time, and it's nonlinearity--but that's for another discussion.

Anyway, the point is that time may simply be irrelevant in the scheme of it all. Time may very well have been something created as a linear flow from A to B, simply to create order around chaos and form a causal relationship within our four known dimensions (or six, if you've heard my theory, ). Perhaps time would cease to exist once we are no longer bound by "normal" physical laws. We may someday discover that time is merely a concept within our own minds, and does not truly exist. For the most part, this only brings more questions than answers. So the religious and athiests alike may deride me for these thoughts.

 

[Sander]

Actually, Gwydion, I was saying that mainly for the people (read: megatron) who were taking this very offensively. If you enjoy it, go right ahead, I won't stop you, I just wanted to note that this will lead to nothing.

Yep, OSRP, as well as that, there is also something else:
From NOTHING(meaning nothing, no laws, no anything) something can come forth, because there ae no laws saying it can't happen! How I love stuff like that Just another way of saying what I already said...

 

[JJ86]

Tone, Gwydion, et al. The difference between us is not that one believes or disbelieves. I am not a disbeliever - we all have beliefs. Would you want my beliefs to be yours as much as yours mine? That I would hope to be untrue. I am happy with things as they must be and no "god" or "gods" or "supernatural presences of all persuasion" are going to make the world we exist in any different.

"It is."

We are nothing more than simple beasts with a longer memory.

A penchant for the imaginary. You are not real, but some random keystrokes on my screen. Nothing is real if you have no foundation.

When Nietzsche declared "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I", the heavens did not collapse, the dead did not rise. Armageddon is a concept, not a reality. The truth is not set out like a tablecloth and settings for four. Life is a day-to-day mystery.

Reason is an arbitrary thesis mottled by multitudes of Jansenists pressured by the church for verisimilitude. Wherein the sects split from conservatism, ideas foundered on the seas of change and we vaulted towards new ideologies. God was not the same as he was in Justinian's view. Cornerstones were the same or at least seemed to be the same but the lie was different. The ecclesiastical ornamentation hidden behind velveted-confessionals obscured Peter's deserted vestitudes.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Also, Tone, I didn't respond to your question because I thought it was useless and had little to do with the question itself, if you want an answer: Yes, I find it highly unlikely that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, but then again, I never said that God couldn't exist

The question I asked wasn't useless, it was the same premise that the atheists were using to show why God doesn't exist. "Why doesn't '[H]e' show [H]imself?" Basically they were saying if it can't be proven that He exists, then He doesn't exist.

So I asked about 'aliens' because I find that a lot of Atheists who depend so highly on science for their points believe intelligent life exists off of planet earth. This is the same premise for believing in God, however, those of us who do believe in God have at least some feelings that show that He is there (through the Holy Ghost).

People take a view (i.e. God doesn't exist) and argue about how they can't believe something without proof, but then they harbor beliefs that there is other life out there, without proof.

I know you didn't say God couldn't exist. I believe you stated you are an agnostic, which at least is open minded, rather than trying to prove a negative simply because one can't 'see' the evidence.

In common terms this is referred to as hypocrasy.

Old School Role Player:

I like science, and have become sort of lazy in my persuit of it since college, so I appreciate reading stuff like that to refresh at least some of my waning scientific knowledge. Reading stuff like that resparks my desire to finish off a degree in physics (I have a few classes under my belt in that area but not too many). Science is a great tool for us. Through science we have come to where we are. Some people like myself would argue that scientific discoveries are generally learned with the aid of God, but I trust science regardless. However, it has never been the aim of science (I believe) to prove negatives. There is always a possibility.

 

[Old School Role-Player]

Oh, he's setting us up, what a tricky dicky!

When you can't win the battle, turn and run like hell.

I made the reason I'm asking this quite clear. Your evasion of the question undermines your credibility of arguement.

Wow, Tone, I'm not one to chastise people for believing in something, but you are taking this entirely too seriously. For one, what makes you think that *you* can win this battle either? The fact of the matter is, there is not *nearly* enough evidence for EITHER side to prove it's point. I know you think you have the answers, and Ghetto thinks he has the answers, but I will stake everything I own that neither of you has enough evidence to even win by a "preponderance of evidence."

Your question about belief in other life forms is basically a non sequitir argument. Because a person believes in one thing does not mean that they are hypocrites or incorrect for not believing in another thing. It's just like the Schroedinger's Cat argument. If you place a cat inside a box and close the lid, do you know that the cat exists? It is now out of the realm of your immediate senses, so you have no *true* way of knowing. However, the difference between believing a cat is still inside a box and believing in God is a *vast* difference. For one, you have much stronger evidence to believe that a cat is in a box than you do believing in God. In your specific example, man uses the virtual laws of probability to determine whether or not there can be life on other planets, as well as newfound evidence that microbes were probably once living on Mars and other places where several comets have come from (the theoretical Oort Cloud outside the solar system). Comparing apples and oranges as you are doing Tone, simply comes down to the idea that people who believe in alien life forms do not *swear* and *preach* the possibility as a fact. However, religious people do those same things about convincing others of the "truth" of their God.

As was mentioned before, religion is simply a comfort to those to do not know everything within the universe (and none of us do). How interesting is it how as science advances and religion retreats, religion always seems to adapt, and people believe just as strongly in this day and age as they did 500 years ago? Religion is a great way to fill the niche to make people feel better.

Take for instance, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. A total of 3000 people died in the attacks. The Americans and their predominantly Christian beliefs said that "Only 3000 died when it easily could have been 10,000-20,000 people died. God was truly on our side during this horrible plight." On the other hand, in Afghanistan, the Muslim Taliban and Al-Quaeda said, "Wow, 3000 people died in New York that day. God was truly on our side for inflicting so many casualties." It's the same ridiculous statements that are made from professional atheletes. "Um, I'd like to thank my wife for supporting me, my coach for helping me develop my full potential, and God because apparently we're God's favorite team." It's not that God is stupid for helping Mike Tyson, Barry Bonds or Pele win--it's more like people are stupid for claiming God as a reason for their success or failures. It makes even more people stupid for believing it.

Truth is, if there is a God, then He does not interfere in our lives--and it's probably best that way. As much as you'd like to shield a child from all the dangers in the world, wouldn't it be better to let him discover these things for himself so that he may become a better man in the long run? To expand upon what Kharn said, how can we grow if we do not suffer? Can anybody on this board show me a bad experience in his life that had absolutely no purpose or point? If you do, then I will show you a fool.

 

[Sander]

As was mentioned before, religion is simply a comfort to those to do not know everything within the universe (and none of us do). How interesting is it how as science advances and religion retreats, religion always seems to adapt, and people believe just as strongly in this day and age as they did 500 years ago? Religion is a great way to fill the niche to make people feel better.

Perhaps, OSRP, but that does not mean that there are other reasons. Religions exist for many reason, because a charismatic man started one, out of a genuine (or at least perceived as genuine) religious experience.
It sounds to me as if you're saying that religion is a fraud in this clause, although your later statements contradict this, could you perhaps rephrase it? Or say that it was not meant to sound like this

Tone: Thank you for acknowledging that I'm an agnost I like to say I'm very open-minded about things like this, and I'd think that most people should be, it would make the world a whole lot easier(No more people saying "Die christian dogs!" or people getting pissed at religious people.) However, that is my point of view, please dont take it as me saying that you have to be open-minded, but I'd like to see people at least see where other people are coming from and not dismissing them as idiots because of beliefs they can't disprove themselves.
Yes, some atheists are perhaps hypocrits, but not all of them are, some genuinely believe in nothing, or believe that god does not exist, because of multiple reasons. People claiming that there are reasons behind evil, or claiming that they are just plain wrong won't help this.

What I'd also like to add, is that not being open to the possibility that god may _not_ exist, is a form of arrogance here as well. You are currently denying any form of non-existance of god(which is fine, I don't want to know your reasons or anything), however, this means you believe in something without having facts to back this up(Yes, you may have had that genuine religious experience, however, perhaps it was a dream, or there was some other experience, please, don't say "It WAS real!",because I am certain YOU believe it was real, and perhaps it was, but that doesn't mean it automatically IS real.), and as such, you cannot claim that the other is a hypocrit without looking at yourself, since you don't seem to be open to the possibility that god does NOT exist, and thus you are doing what you accuse the atheists of doing.

 

[«ºTone Caponeº»]

Oh, he's setting us up, what a tricky dicky!

When you can't win the battle, turn and run like hell.

I made the reason I'm asking this quite clear. Your evasion of the question undermines your credibility of arguement.

Wow, Tone, I'm not one to chastise people for believing in something, but you are taking this entirely too seriously. For one, what makes you think that *you* can win this battle either? The fact of the matter is, there is not *nearly* enough evidence for EITHER side to prove it's point. I know you think you have the answers, and Ghetto thinks he has the answers, but I will stake everything I own that neither of you has enough evidence to even win by a "preponderance of evidence."

I'm not claiming victory, there is no victory in this battle unless one side converts the other, and I don't think that will happen. I'm simply stating that they are losing the battle because they are losing their credibility. They are picking which points they want to defend and ignoring others. If they are going to wage an arguement that is going to solid, they can't just pick and choose which parts of it they want answer and leave the rest alone.

Additionally I am not chastising anyone for their beliefs, simply their evasion of questions. Since you brought up "preponderance of evidence" how about the fact that they are basically suppressing evidence.

Your question about belief in other life forms is basically a non sequitir argument. Because a person believes in one thing does not mean that they are hypocrites or incorrect for not believing in another thing. It's just like the Schroedinger's Cat argument. If you place a cat inside a box and close the lid, do you know that the cat exists? It is now out of the realm of your immediate senses, so you have no *true* way of knowing. However, the difference between believing a cat is still inside a box and believing in God is a *vast* difference. For one, you have much stronger evidence to believe that a cat is in a box than you do believing in God. In your specific example, man uses the virtual laws of probability to determine whether or not there can be life on other planets, as well as newfound evidence that microbes were probably once living on Mars and other places where several comets have come from (the theoretical Oort Cloud outside the solar system). Comparing apples and oranges as you are doing Tone, simply comes down to the idea that people who believe in alien life forms do not *swear* and *preach* the possibility as a fact. However, religious people do those same things about convincing others of the "truth" of their God.

That arguement is valid on the premise that they are stating that if it can't be proven, they won't believe it. I understand the differences, but the premise is the same. If you (not *you* specifically) aren't going to believe something unless it is proven, then you wouldn't believe in intelligent life elsewhere until it is proven. Unless you simply have a preformed opinion of religion, which would undermine the 'logic' in making this choice. If you want to count probability, the fact that probably a majority of the earth believes in a higher being makes it very probable that one exists. Or we are all in some grand conspiracy.

As was mentioned before, religion is simply a comfort to those to do not know everything within the universe (and none of us do). How interesting is it how as science advances and religion retreats, religion always seems to adapt, and people believe just as strongly in this day and age as they did 500 years ago? Religion is a great way to fill the niche to make people feel better.

I don't really see religion adapting, at least not in my faith. My faith is organized as it was when Christ walked on the earth (Ephesians 4:11). The only difference is Christ isn't walking the earth right now, but just as a prophet emerged after Christ, we have a prophet today.

I guess you could argue since we drive cars to church, use computers, etc... it is adapting, but I'd call it utilizing technology.

Take for instance, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. A total of 3000 people died in the attacks. The Americans and their predominantly Christian beliefs said that "Only 3000 died when it easily could have been 10,000-20,000 people died. God was truly on our side during this horrible plight." On the other hand, in Afghanistan, the Muslim Taliban and Al-Quaeda said, "Wow, 3000 people died in New York that day. God was truly on our side for inflicting so many casualties." It's the same ridiculous statements that are made from professional atheletes.

Well, from discussing beliefs like this with an Islamic member of The Order (KSM), it sounds like God was on the side of the U.S. as according to him, and others, this is a fundamentalist perversion of Islam. I could go to the store with my AR-15 and probably kill about 30 or 40 people easy and claim God was on my side and by allowing me to kill them He wanted them dead. I could also claim that papa smurf told me it too. Sometimes God may just step back and say, "Well, they want to do this, I'll let them handle it." Sometimes people have to learn the hard way. We aren't puppets, He gives us guidance and may intervene, but He may not. The tragedy on September 11th brough about a lot of good. At a steep price, but maybe it was neccessary.

"Um, I'd like to thank my wife for supporting me, my coach for helping me develop my full potential, and God because apparently we're God's favorite team." It's not that God is stupid for helping Mike Tyson, Barry Bonds or Pele win--it's more like people are stupid for claiming God as a reason for their success or failures. It makes even more people stupid for believing it.

God may have been a motivating factor, but in events like that, I think God probably leaves us to our own devices. If I'm boxing an atheist and I win, I'm going to thank God because I feel he has made my life possible and blessed it. If I lose, it isn't because I'm a bad Christian, it is because I should have trained harder, and there is a lesson in that.

Truth is, if there is a God, then He does not interfere in our lives--and it's probably best that way. As much as you'd like to shield a child from all the dangers in the world, wouldn't it be better to let him discover these things for himself so that he may become a better man in the long run? To expand upon what Kharn said, how can we grow if we do not suffer? Can anybody on this board show me a bad experience in his life that had absolutely no purpose or point? If you do, then I will show you a fool.

I agree with that last paragraph 100%. If you read up some, I stated that without poverty and suffering there would be no charity. I also said that we have freewill to choose our actions. We reap the consequences of this. In many cases I have seen the blessings of God upon myself and my family. Sometimes I've wondered why bad things have happened. In every case though, I didn't just sit back and say, "Well, God must be mad so there is nothing I can do." That is foolish. God helps those who help themselves. I'll give it my best and leave the rest up to God, but I don't expect God to shield me from every bad thing, nor to do every task for me. If that were the case, we wouldn't grow.

As for children, you let them discover some for themselves, but others you shield them from. I don't want my kids to discover that crack cocaine is bad by becoming crack addicts. I'm going to teach them about it and shield them from it. Some times kids need to learn the hard way. As mine get older, I'll let them do that, and I'll provide support for them when they need it.