Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Iacchus said:
Whoa dude! So, if anybody else comes along and claims to have had such an experience, does this make them ready for the loony bin? Or, at the very least a liar?
Click to expand...

Loony bin, possibly. Depends if they can give me any good reason to believe their experience was real. Lots of nice mushrooms out there that'll make you think you saw God. Doesn't mean you really did.

Liar, again possibly. If you have a delusion about meeting God and you sincerely believe it happened then you're are deluded but not a liar. You're only a liar if you know it didn't really happen but claim it did anyway.
 
Belz... said:
That's not completely accurate.

There are indications that there is no designer or creator involved because of how things work or are arranged. An intelligent beign, any beign, who creates something is, more than likely, NOT going to create a universe whose physical laws are indistinguishable from those of a universe born from random processes.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but the major argument with scientists and theolists is the scientists claim they are willing to change when a law is found to have an exception. However, your argument contains the words "indications" and "more than likely". Did physics (itself, not the study of it) change when each law was proven true? No, physics remained the same, the study of it changed. Does that mean the laws did not apply before they were proven? No, we just didn't see the logic behind it yet.

I understand your position on this topic.

EDIT: Forgot to finish my thought...

If God was proved to exist, would it fall under "science" and, thus, not be religion? If the Christian God was proven to be true, how would science accept that? If that is the case, yes, science is always correct in dicatating who's right. But because the law of gravity worked long before somebody thought about prooving it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Do you believe that the Universe in which we live is a fluke? If so, then how is it possible to know (and be reasonably certain) of anything? This is only one step away, believe it or not, of accepting what I've come to accept ... albeit there are a whole myriad of things which have happened to me on a personal level, that have helped to confirm it.
Click to expand...

Egads, it's the Wookie defense.

"If Chewbacca is a Wookie, and he lives on Endor, then you must acquit...."
 
wastepanel said:
If God was proved to exist, would it fall under "science" and, thus, not be religion? If the Christian God was proven to be true, how would science accept that? If that is the case, yes, science is always correct in dicatating who's right. But because the law of gravity worked long before somebody thought about prooving it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Click to expand...
How would anyone prove God exists?

How could anyone prove God doesn't exist?

Is the statement "God does not exist" a claim?
And if it is a claim, why is the claimant not taken to task as are those who claim God does exist?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
That is a lie. Period.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to back up this accusation?
Click to expand...

Are you blind, little boy?:

Originally Posted by Tricky :
Actually, everybody is a liar. I challenge any person here to claim that they have never lied. So being a liar is a given, it is simply a matter of degree. I will say in your defense though, that being delusional is not the same thing as being a liar.
Click to expand...
 
ruach1 said:
How would anyone prove God exists?

How could anyone prove God doesn't exist?

Is the statement "God does not exist" a claim?
And if it is a claim, why is the claimant not taken to task as are those who claim God does exist?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Yet many people on this forum maintain that God does not exist. Many people elsewhere claim he could have. Others he most definately does. Of those three groups of people, who seems to be the most rational?

There is no evidence for any of these arguments. Thus, every person that chimes in is merely STATING AN OPINION.
 
wastepanel said:
You've managed to dissect my statements very nicely. When I said "valid", I meant that there is no evidence contradicting. And, since it is a personal belief, I have obviously let my mind wander to the "Yeah, one might exist" mindset. So valid in my mind may not be valid in yours. In fact, somebody sharing the opposite train of thought could use that same argument and I could not disprove that person. I accept that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. As long as you recognize that.

wastepanel said:
I believe what it would take to disprove to me that there was/is no creator is, basically, a timeline of the universe. We have that now, but it is not even close to being accurate. For example, if we choose the Big Bang as time equaling -0-, I would want to see what happened before that (blah, blah, blah...time and physics didn't exist). My problem is that both the theological and the scientific theories both assume "First there was...". Theologians say there was a creator. Scientists say there was mass. I'm more interested in seeing what was there, and how it was created.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're saying. Scientists assume nothing before the Big Bang. After the big bang, well it's still pretty jumbled, but essentially the entire universe compressed very tightly (compared to today). I'm not a physicist, but I can understand the basic concept.

However, the gist of what you are saying is that you think we could theoretically gather enough information about the timeline of the universe to convince you it was not caused by a diety. That's good. You seem to accept that evidence can provide the answers, even if currently, it doesn't.

wastepanel said:
I am not interested in the argument that physics could be different, time didn't exist, etc. in this discussion either. Worst case scenerio is we find a new, exciting version of physics. The odd thing I find about this argument is that it is SPECULATION that physics could have acted differently before the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
I think the general argument among those who are knowledgable here is that there was no "physics" before the big bang, operating differently or otherwise. There was nothing at all.

wastepanel said:
I hope I've answered your questions Tricky.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I can see that you are withholding final judgment until there is enough info (assuming there ever could be), but I still don't understand why, in the lack of said info, your default position is that a creator exists. Actually, I probably do understand it (I gave several examples of why someone might believe this) but you've never stated it, so I don't want to make assumptions.
 
wastepanel said:
Exactly. Yet many people on this forum maintain that God does not exist. Many people elsewhere claim he could have. Others he most definately does. Of those three groups of people, who seems to be the most rational?

There is no evidence for any of these arguments. Thus, every person that chimes in is merely STATING AN OPINION.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that leprachauns exist. I do not believe in leprachauns. Is that "STATING AN OPINION", or is that a reasonble conclusion based on the evidence?
 
wastepanel said:
If there is no evidence to the contrary or to prove existance, I keep my mind open. I'm not going to throw all my marbles into one basket, only to have that basket's bottom fall through.
Click to expand...

"An open mind" usually means: will follow the evidence, even if contrary to one's beliefs. So far, the evidence does not support your belief.

I've met alot of people that hold no regard for unproven beliefs. To me, this is taking a big step out of rational thought. If I think something, does it make it wrong if nobody concurs?
Click to expand...

No, but lack of evidence where evidence would be expected is a good indication that something does no exist.
 
wastepanel said:
Exactly. Yet many people on this forum maintain that God does not exist.
Click to expand...
There are only a very few here that claim with certainty that God does not exist. Most (like myself) decline to believe in any concept of God that we have ever heard due to the lack of evidence. You could say that we believe there is no God because we believe that real things leave evidence, but not that He is impossible. My position is that the only things that are impossible are self-contradictions. An example of a self-contradiction is the phrase "before time existed".
 
Iacchus said:
Do you believe that the Universe in which we live is a fluke? If so, then how is it possible to know (and be reasonably certain) of anything?
Click to expand...

I don't see how one sentence relates to the other. The universe is a "fluke" in the sense that it is a random occurance. I don't see how that removes the possibility to know what goes on INSIDE the universe, and science does just that, every day.
 
Huntster said:
That is a lie. Period.
Click to expand...

Well, you get points for saying that first. Hopefully no one else will, because it would be inaccurate.

I simply don't lie because I have no need to, and because I abhor falsehoods. I hate it when people lie to me, and so I don't do it to them. I don't see why this would be hard to believe.
 
Tricky said:
Sure you do. Everybody does to some extent. Sometimes its even the right thing to do ("Honey, does my ass look too big?"). I have never known a person who has not told a single lie in their life. I would be very surprised to find you were the first.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't misunderstand me. I used to lie when I was a kid. One day, when I was 10, I decided I'd stop that for the above mentionned reasons, and because it never actually brings anything good. So It's become somewhat of a principle. I don't lie.

Of course, if somebody threatens to kill me and my only way out is a lie... sure! But it'll need some mighty damn reason. In fact, I once told my boss that I would not lie to a client, even if he threatened to fire me.
 
Tricky said:
Ah, but Chewbacca does not live on Endor. He was only visiting. So OJ is guilty.
Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than that. The as yet unfilmed nintey-eighth Star Wars film takes place in sunny California. There, Luke loses his glove in a light sabre (It's my post, I'll spell sabre corretly) duel with "Darth Shag", who later turns out to be Chewbacca in diguise. Well, not really disguise, just a new set of highlight. It's Luke's glove, and Chewy's blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom