some of you make the Claim there is no God

[switchopens]

I do not make a claim that there's no God.

I do not believe in God due to lack of evidence.

I do claim that the Abrahamic God is manmade, and I back that up.

This. I don't think I could have made that clearer myself.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Yes, Sheri is right. If you don't want to be pressed for evidence, and aren't thick-skinned enough to weather the storm of controversy and disbelief, confine yourself within the secure bastions of Faith and stay out of such worldly discussions. Myself, I follow the example of my Lord and enter any place where I am welcome with an understanding and forgiving heart. Of course, not being perfect, I sometimes fall prey to the heat of the discussion. A few scrapes and bruises are to expected on the sidewalks of life.

I think we all go through that, for I believe life is hard but the art is in the handling in it.

For the scrapes and bruises we do get, I believe that sometimes it's in the art of wearing them with style!! :D

(just make sure one gets their cup of coffee in the morning.)

Well said my friend,

Same with me Hammer (who happens to be a theist I respect),I try to live and let live and my bestie ( Sharon) on here walks in faith; I like every thing she says and learn a lot from her, yes, I said I learn a lot from her! And, on occasssion I jump in for an Athiest tussle, or sometimes I am having an agnostic day and want to challenge myself to see things broader, and at times I see the theists point of view and think wow what a good point, I have yet to meet a pagan I didn't come away richer for it. And, it doesn't matter the label, a good reason is a good reason, and I want a chance to hear it.

I have to say though, I learn more from Sheri, and most others here, than I ever thought of anything I could contribute here.

Awww shucks Sheri! *looks sheepish*

[Podo]

I echo Davos of Skaro's post. I do not posit that I know there is no god, but I acknowledge that there is no evidence to even suggest that such a thing even exists. I don't need to prove that god doesn't exist any more than I have to prove that leprechauns don't exist.

[Roy Perry]

Thanks everybody

I enjoy reading your peaceful talks with each other

I once was like Russell's teapot but I saw into the lies that Russell's push

That why I call my myself Christian-atheist because I want to believe and I want to unbelieved

you see that a battle going on for each second

once I was a lot like Russell's the Believer and Russell's the atheist

I push something I could not prove

I would been better if I said nothing at all

or ask a question

if I did understand them

you see the Russell's teapot of the world have done nothing us

Love Roy

[White Crane Feather]

I echo Davos of Skaro's post. I do not posit that I know there is no god, but I acknowledge that there is no evidence to even suggest that such a thing even exists. I don't need to prove that god doesn't exist any more than I have to prove that leprechauns don't exist.

But there is tons of evidence. Weather you accept it as evidence or not is your choice, but making a claim there is no evidence because you choose to ignore it or interpret it from your own particular philosophical goggles is just as bad as people asking to prove negatives. It's a pointless endeavor. Atheists right here on these forums have admitted that God could boom his voice from the clouds, throw lightning bolts at them, zip them off to another universe that he created just for them or any other manner of imortal gymnastics, and they would simply consider themselves crazy or under alien attack until some sort of peer reviewed study was done on god and repeated. That is an impressive level of social control and faith in our current scientific process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather

[Podo]

But there is tons of evidence. Weather you accept it as evidence or not is your choice, but making a claim there is no evidence because you choose to ignore it or interpret it from your own particular philosophical goggles is just as bad as people asking to prove negatives. It's a pointless endeavor. Atheists right here on these forums have admitted that God could boom his voice from the clouds, throw lightning bolts at them, zip them off to another universe that he created just for them or any other manner of imortal gymnastics, and they would simply consider themselves crazy until some sort of peer reviewed study was done on god and repeated. That is an impressive level of social control and faith in our current scientific process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

Provide some of this evidence, then. And while you're at it, be proud that you've done something that no other human has ever been able to do. Go on, I'll wait.

To address the second part of your post, I am not one of those atheists. If evidence surfaced proving a deity, I'd accept it. If an entity appeared and demonstraby could violate a basic universal law (entropy, conservation of mass, etc) then I would accept it. Nothing of the sort has happened yet, however.

[White Crane Feather]

Provide some of this evidence, then. And while you're at it, be proud that you've done something that no other human has ever been able to do. Go on, I'll wait.

To address the second part of your post, I am not one of those atheists. If evidence surfaced proving a deity, I'd accept it. If an entity appeared and demonstraby could violate a basic universal law (entropy, conservation of mass, etc) then I would accept it. Nothing of the sort has happened yet, however.

Great. 1) the universe is pixilated with a definate resolution. 2)the universe conserves processing power as evident in quantum mechanics. 3) Lenord suskind shows us that there are not just a few things that are fined tunes so that this kind of reality can exist there are thousands and the only aswere we can have to that to avoid the implication of a designer is an infinite landscape of universes. You can research all of it if you like. I'm not the first human to point out that the universe is probably a simulation and therefore needs an intelligent designer.

What you want is proof. Scientific conclusions are expressed in likleyhoods. As observed from detail study it's very likely a powerful entity designed our reality. Down to its smallest parts reality behaves exactly as we would expect it to if it were designed.

I don't like it that much either, but hiding behind philosophical bias is a mistake.

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather

[Stubbly_Dooright]

But there is tons of evidence. Weather you accept it as evidence or not is your choice, but making a claim there is no evidence because you choose to ignore it or interpret it from your own particular philosophical goggles is just as bad as people asking to prove negatives. It's a pointless endeavor. Atheists right here on these forums have admitted that God could boom his voice from the clouds, throw lightning bolts at them, zip them off to another universe that he created just for them or any other manner of imortal gymnastics, and they would simply consider themselves crazy or under alien attack until some sort of peer reviewed study was done on god and repeated. That is an impressive level of social control and faith in our current scientific process.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

Or maybe, it has taken God so long to do such things, that I wouldn't blame Atheists in wondering why he hasn't made himself known sooner. I guess there is a reason for everything, right?

Like a thread in 'sightings' forum about 'sky trumpets', in which, although I wouldn't blame some in thinking that maybe this is a warning for biblical things to come, one can ask why doing it this way, and why after so long of no other evidence of one's coming.

In the end, because it seems a lot of things end up becoming a natural definition, it seems that the 'sky trumpets' mystery is being just that, and becoming a thread toward understanding it's natural origin.

If God did a lot of talking to the little people through the clouds in the numerous past, I'm sure reactions would be different.

Great. 1) the universe is pixilated with a definate resolution. 2)the universe conserves processing power as evident in quantum mechanics. 3) Lenord suskind shows us that there are not just a few things that are fined tunes so that this kind of reality can exist there are thousands and the only aswere we can have to that to avoid the implication of a designer is an infinite landscape of universes. You can research all of it if you like. I'm not the first human to point out that the universe is probably a simulation and therefore needs an intelligent designer.

What you want is proof. Scientific conclusions are expressed in likleyhoods. As observed from detail study it's very likely a powerful entity designed our reality. Down to its smallest parts reality behaves exactly as we would expect it to if it were designed.

I don't like it that much either, but hiding behind philosophical bias is a mistake.

I don't think you understood what Podo meant by asking for evidence. I don't think it's a good idea, when one asks for evidence, you tell them to find it, when you make a statement in answer.

[White Crane Feather]

Or maybe, it has taken God so long to do such things, that I wouldn't blame Atheists in wondering why he hasn't made himself known sooner. I guess there is a reason for everything, right?

Like a thread in 'sightings' forum about 'sky trumpets', in which, although I wouldn't blame some in thinking that maybe this is a warning for biblical things to come, one can ask why doing it this way, and why after so long of no other evidence of one's coming.

In the end, because it seems a lot of things end up becoming a natural definition, it seems that the 'sky trumpets' mystery is being just that, and becoming a thread toward understanding it's natural origin.

If God did a lot of talking to the little people through the clouds in the numerous past, I'm sure reactions would be different.

I don't think you understood what Podo meant by asking for evidence. I don't think it's a good idea, when one asks for evidence, you tell them to find it, when you make a statement in answer.

I gave him evidence. I'm not going to repeat all the studies to satisfy laziness for the subject matter on a forum. That would be an intelectual cop out on his part if he dosnt want to follow through. At that point he dosnt have any claim that there is no evidence because he won't look at it.

I think a lot of religious people would argue with you that God has not made himself known. I know Christians certainly will. What people want is for God to reveal himself within the boxes we make for him/her/it. It's a bit like my four year old asking me to prove my income to him.

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather

[Podo]

Great. 1) the universe is pixilated with a definate resolution. 2)the universe conserves processing power as evident in quantum mechanics. 3) Lenord suskind shows us that there are not just a few things that are fined tunes so that this kind of reality can exist there are thousands and the only aswere we can have to that to avoid the implication of a designer is an infinite landscape of universes. You can research all of it if you like. I'm not the first human to point out that the universe is probably a simulation and therefore needs an intelligent designer.

What you want is proof. Scientific conclusions are expressed in likleyhoods. As observed from detail study it's very likely a powerful entity designed our reality. Down to its smallest parts reality behaves exactly as we would expect it to if it were designed.

I don't like it that much either, but hiding behind philosophical bias is a mistake.

Universe being a simulation in no way requires a god. If we're a simulation, then something likely designed the universe, but that thing does not need to be diefic; an advanced lifeform in another universe would not be a deity, merely another form of life. Saying "a simulated reality requires a creator, which we know nothing about, therefore god" is silly. Besides, universe-as-simulation is far from a sure thing, as scientists are very divided on the subject. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Nobody knows, yet. You have done nothing to further the case for a creator god, only furthered the case for a creator species. Furthermore, multiverse theory also has supporting evidence, which would allow for specialization of physical laws present within our own reality. That being said, it is the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created for us rather than assuming that we evolved around it, according to its laws.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I gave him evidence. I'm not going to repeat all the studies to satisfy laziness for the subject matter on a forum. That would be an intelectual cop out on his part if he dosnt want to follow through. At that point he dosnt have any claim that there is no evidence because he won't look at it.

are you talking about when you told him to research it, or the link you have talking about philosophical thinking of it? It looks like to me, it doesn't much to go on.

I'm talking about you said for him to 'research it'. No one should research somebody else's claim. They have a right to not agree. If you want them to agree, you do the work. Do you have more links than the one you posted?

I think a lot of religious people would argue with you that God has not made himself known. I know Christians certainly will. What people want is for God to reveal himself within the boxes we make for him/her/it. It's a bit like my four year old asking me to prove my income to him.

How interesting you don't know that well still. I'm religious. Would I argue with me? How are you sure, that people want God to reveal himself in the confines of ambigious boxes of thought and signs? I have talked to plenty of religious people, who pretty much want God to come out, introduce himself, and shake their hands. And I thought this was about Atheists believing from what God does to announce himself, not about believers.

[White Crane Feather]

Universe being a simulation in no way requires a god. If we're a simulation, then something likely designed the universe, but that thing does not need to be diefic; an advanced lifeform in another universe would not be a deity, merely another form of life. Saying "a simulated reality requires a creator, which we know nothing about, therefore god" is silly. Besides, universe-as-simulation is far from a sure thing, as scientists are very divided on the subject. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Nobody knows, yet. You have done nothing to further the case for a creator god, only furthered the case for a creator species. Furthermore, multiverse theory also has supporting evidence, which would allow for specialization of physical laws present within our own reality. That being said, it is the height of arrogance to assume that the universe was created for us rather than assuming that we evolved around it, according to its laws.

Arrogance and an aversion to it is irrelevant. There are many definitions of what a god Is or could be. It's typical for atheist apologists to choose the Christian version. A sufficiently powerful entity or entities can be considered gods in many traditions. Especially one or a race that creates universes.

Weather scientists are divided or not is also irrelevant, you asked for evidence. It's there. But it's just a start there is more. Avoiding the possibility because it dosnt set well with indoctrination is not very becoming of scientists. And yes many scientists deplor the idea of a creator and will jump through mental hoops to avoid any implication of it based purely on their philosophical bias. Others are not so bias, but the fact still remains that reality behaves exactly as we would expect it to if it were created by intelligence. That is a powerful peice of evidence if not a smoking gun.

The evidence even sugests that the creator is not all powerful. Sorry Christians. God has limits otherwise reality would not conserve processing power. He would just make it exist without the pixilation and conservation.

[White Crane Feather]

are you talking about when you told him to research it, or the link you have talking about philosophical thinking of it? It looks like to me, it doesn't much to go on.

I'm talking about you said for him to 'research it'. No one should research somebody else's claim. They have a right to not agree. If you want them to agree, you do the work. Do you have more links than the one you posted?

How interesting you don't know that well still. I'm religious. Would I argue with me? How are you sure, that people want God to reveal himself in the confines of ambigious boxes of thought and signs? I have talked to plenty of religious people, who pretty much want God to come out, introduce himself, and shake their hands. And I thought this was about Atheists believing from what God does to announce himself, not about believers.

It's not my claim I only telling him about it. He has to look at it for himself. I can't flesh out the details of complicated science on a forum, I can only tell him about it and why. Which I did. It's silly to expect more. He seems reasonably intelligent, he even seems to know what I'm talking about.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the statement. And that is exactly waht the Christian God did. He came out and introduced himself. I suppose they want him to do it for everyone. Well I guess if he is as powerful as he says he is then he could. Somhow if God is real I suspect it's more complicated than that.

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather

[Podo]

Arrogance and an aversion to it is irrelevant. There are many definitions of what a god Is or could be. It's typical for atheist apologists to choose the Christian version. A sufficiently powerful entity or entities can be considered gods in many traditions. Especially one or a race that creates universes.

Weather scientists are divided or not is also irrelevant, you asked for evidence. It's there. But it's just a start there is more. Avoiding the possibility because it dosnt set well with indoctrination is not very becoming of scientists. And yes many scientists deplor the idea of a creator and will jump through mental hoops to avoid any implication of it based purely on their philosophical bias. Others are not so bias, but the fact still remains that reality behaves exactly as we would expect it to if it were created by intelligence. That is a powerful peice of evidence if not a smoking gun.

The evidence even sugests that the creator is not all powerful. Sorry Christians. God has limits otherwise reality would not conserve processing power. He would just make it exist without the pixilation and conservation.

From this reply I actually think we agree. I don't argue that there isn't any evidence for a creator species, or us living in a simulation. I think it is highly unlikely and far (faaar) from fact, but possible. I argue there is no evidence for an all-powerful god, which most religions profess to follow, and which you seem to agree with. You're using the term "god" to mean anything that isn't life being created on its own, which is where we're losing each other.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Podo

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It's not my claim I only telling him about it. He has to look at it for himself.

Why? If he wants to believe, maybe he can. But if it's your wish for him to believe, I think you would be the one to do the work. Right?

I can't flesh out the details of complicated science on a forum, I can only tell him about it and why.

Why not? I have found that quite of posters here, have done a very good job of that. So, I think it can be done.

Which I did. It's silly to expect more. He seems reasonably intelligent, he even seems to know what I'm talking about.

I don't think it matters if anyone is intelligent or not, when the goal is to get them to see your point. If getting them to see your point is very important to you, you would go through the steps to do so, right?

I mean, even is someone asks, and you don't provide much, one can say how disappointed they are with your point and say, they do not agree. Is that alright with you?

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the statement.

Saying religious people would argue with me, makes it sounds like you think I'm Atheist. Which ever, I will take that then. *shrugs*

And that is exactly waht the Christian God did. He came out and introduced himself.

I missed that part. When did you say that. In a situation, that pretty much really doesn't say God did it? Or did you reveal that somewhere else?

I suppose they want him to do it for everyone. Well I guess if he is as powerful as he says he is then he could. Somhow if God is real I suspect it's more complicated than that.

Yes, I believe it's more complicated. I also think there are certain aspects that might not be agreeable to all, but that is my belief. If God wants everyone to believe in him, like you want a poster to believe in your points, I think the consideration would be there to something that would show agreement and belief in their eyes.

[White Crane Feather]

From this reply I actually think we agree. I don't argue that there isn't any evidence for a creator species, or us living in a simulation. I think it is highly unlikely and far (faaar) from fact, but possible. I argue there is no evidence for an all-powerful god, which most religions profess to follow, and which you seem to agree with. You're using the term "god" to mean anything that isn't life being created on its own, which is where we're losing each other.

Omniscience and Omnipotence is logically impossible to maintain anything like free will, personal involvement, or overturn determinism. We have evidence that determinism is false therefore unless that evidence is overturned in some sort of substrate activity providing the platform in which quantum mechanics is derived from, Omniscience is pretty much off the table. Even an entity that designed the rules would have had to design them so that it didn't know the outcome. Maybe alomostomniscient is a better term.

I'm not as sure As you are that it's unlikely. The evidence is awe fully strong and there are no other alternatives at the moment why the rules are the way they are. Quantum mechanics itself operates in a way that is incredibly good at creating universes and allowing for there to be a reality in the first place. Most likely everything there is emerges from simple uncertainty which prolerties are simutaniously the solution to conservation of processing power. It's amazing and quit ingenious. Even if we are going to accept an infinite cosmic landscape that allows for different rules in different places, that infinity would most likely breed highly evolved beings capable of creating universes and they probably would not just do it once. The average universe with life would be a created one. The point behind creating universes is to recreate intelligence. It's no wonder this particular one would be so Finley tuned. You can't argue with averages and statistics. (Well you can) but it's hard. The cold likleyhoods lean more to this universe haveing a creator. And in that sense, yes. It would be our God. Strangely enough it looks more like the Mormon religion. No I'm not Mormon. Maybe this is the way intelligence recreates itself, then we get a new body if we are good intelligent creatures. That new body then lives in the other reality. Who knows? its fun to speculate, but let's hope our God is not a pimply sadistic kid in a garage somwhere. I know there are some people that would agree with that too.

[White Crane Feather]

Why? If he wants to believe, maybe he can. But if it's your wish for him to believe, I think you would be the one to do the work. Right? Why not? I have found that quite of posters here, have done a very good job of that. So, I think it can be done. I don't think it matters if anyone is intelligent or not, when the goal is to get them to see your point. If getting them to see your point is very important to you, you would go through the steps to do so, right?

I mean, even is someone asks, and you don't provide much, one can say how disappointed they are with your point and say, they do not agree. Is that alright with you?

Saying religious people would argue with me, makes it sounds like you think I'm Atheist. Which ever, I will take that then. *shrugs* I missed that part. When did you say that. In a situation, that pretty much really doesn't say God did it? Or did you reveal that somewhere else? Yes, I believe it's more complicated. I also think there are certain aspects that might not be agreeable to all, but that is my belief. If God wants everyone to believe in him, like you want a poster to believe in your points, I think the consideration would be there to something that would show agreement and belief in their eyes.

I think your giving me far to much. It's only important to me as it is stimulating. I'm an agnostic at heart leaning towards theism. An agnostic theist.

Yes I suppose I could flesh all of it out in a wall of text, and I think I have a few times in other places. But no need. He knows what I'm talking about and understands my argument now.

[Davros of Skaro]

The universe is a projected halographic simulation.

Therefore R2-D2 is God.

[White Crane Feather]

The universe is a projected halographic simulation.

Therefore R2-D2 is God.

Could be. Then R2s CPU would be the spirit world. But R2 is in a galaxy far far away, not a substrate universe.

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather

[+Hammerclaw]

I see no point in believing what the author of that paper doesn't believe himself. Don't mistake hypotheses and intellectual excercises as peer reviewed and widely accepted theory. Sorry White Crane Feather, but that's just another example of a theist cherry-picking science to back a theological point.

[White Crane Feather]

I see no point in believing what the author of that paper doesn't believe himself. Don't mistake hypotheses and intellectual excercises as peer reviewed and widely accepted theory. Sorry White Crane Feather, but that's just another example of a theist cherry-picking science to back a theological point.

Maybe. But I see no reason to think that one is not capable of cherry picking what papers to give credit to and what not based on their own biases either. Reguardless of interpretation the hard facts still exist. Do you have counter argument or are you only going to rely on religion to impose an ad homonym?

[+Hammerclaw]

Maybe. But I see no reason to think that one is not capable of cherry picking what papers to give credit to and what not based on their own biases either. Reguardless of interpretation the hard facts still exist. Do you have counter argument or are you only going to rely on religion to impose an ad homonym?

Oh no, I'll cherry-pick my own link and post that. In the meantime, you do yourself a great disservice by posting conjecture and prattling on as though it were fact. http://www.universet...not-a-hologram/ Edited February 2, 2016 by Hammerclaw

[White Crane Feather]

Oh no, I'll cherry-pick my own link and post that. In the meantime, you do yourself a great disservice by posting conjecture and prattling on as though it were fact. http://www.universet...not-a-hologram/

I never said anything about a hologram? it seems like you are reaching a bit and falling victim to makeing the argument about me, not the facts. Typical when people are not capable of discussing the subject matter. I'm also wondering if you even looked at the link i provided. I'm not sure it is what you think it is.

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather

[+Hammerclaw]

I never said anything about a hologram? it seems like you are reaching a bit and falling victim to makeing the argument about me, not the facts. Typical when people are not capable of discussing the subject matter. I'm also wondering if you even looked at the link i provided. I'm not sure it is what you think it is.

Neither did I. Editing your posts isn't going to fool anyone who has read them, either.

[White Crane Feather]

Trust me you don't want to try and read my posts if I don't edit them. I'm not sure what you are insinuating? Are you suggesting I am changing my arguments? Are you still attempting to make this about me.

You posted an article about athe holographic principal. Did you not?

Here I'll follow the links to the pdf for you.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf

Seriously, I don't think you are intersted in discussing the subject matter. Which actually speaks to a point I mentioned earlyier in this thread. So unless you you actually have something to contribute to the conversation I am not going to continue to defend insinuations about me personally I'm not intersted in playing with trolls.

Edited February 2, 2016 by White Crane Feather