start a religious thread. m'kay? post "I want to prove there is no god" or something like that- such as "I am going to show how all christians are wrong". My first question is, has this been done? Has it been done that somebody has either:

Proven all christians wrong.

Prove there is no god.
?
No?????


Why not?!
Come on guys, surely we (you) can do better than that!

My next question:
Has their been a thread or arguement ever in existence on the logical impossibility of Gods existence? 0-sorta like P_J did with light gigantic, although they never finished...- Well, has there been?

It is this that leads me to conclude, posting in the religous section, that my view of agnosticism will not change any time soon at all, probably never in my lifetime. It is this that leads me to conclude, that more than likely, all of the threads started aganist christianity are moot. What will be done? What? "The old testimate is a peice of ^()%." Great! "God is dead." UUBERAWESOME! Well, until we find out some proof of gods, I mean a reason to dis-believe any thing or god, we are just discussing non-sence, non-sence non-sence. This God is dead thing has shaken me, as it has been confirmed that "it has no longer any role in the lifes of serious people", but is this even true, considering my stance of agnosticism? Will people ever stop posting things in the religious section, until they are 'intelligent' arguements for religious belief / opinion / etc?

I suppose this is nothing but a proposition on agnosticism.

Well, what do you guys think? That you're never going to post something to convince us other-wise? If so, then let us hear it here.

start a religious thread. m'kay? post "I want to prove there is no god" or something like that- such as "I am going to show how all christians are wrong". My first question is, has this been done? Has it been done that somebody has either:

Proven all christians wrong.

Prove there is no god.
?
No?????


Why not?!
Come on guys, surely we (you) can do better than that!

Prove there is no Santa Claus.
?
No?????

Why not?! Come on existaberant, sure you can do better than that! :p

common ashura! Quit believing in fairy tales.

Shouldn't we use our judgement and all available information to determine how likely something is? If something is extremely unlikely, like the proposition there is a Santa Clause, isn't that sufficient to discount the idea? It is important to recognize the inherent uncertainty of knowing anything for sure, but that shouldn't rob us of our powers of rationality.

Sure, if you have a rational disproof of theism, let us see it.

My response centers on proving that theism is highly unlikely, like a teapot orbiting Mars, not completely impossible. The principles of creating life, after all, can be figured out, and a sufficiently advanced culture could do it theoretically.

Would you maintain agnosticism about a teapot orbiting Mars?

I think theism is far more advanced an arguement than that of a teapot orbiting Mars. Otherwise, I would change my beliefs. However, there are so many intellectual theist philosophers, I haven't heard their side of the story yet. So, I can't dis-count what I don't know right?... *confused* *angry*

Shouldn't we use our judgement and all available information to determine how likely something is? If something is extremely unlikely, like the proposition there is a Santa Clause, isn't that sufficient to discount the idea? It is important to recognize the inherent uncertainty of knowing anything for sure, but that shouldn't rob us of our powers of rationality.

Hmm, so is that saying that we should make judgements based on ...something like rolling the dice? Or playing roulette?

If one doesn't have all of the necessary information and evidence, why bother making any judgements at all?

Baron Max

I see what you mean now about the teapot. But still, until I hear that very arguement presented so that it is clear, I will not believe in it. About the santa fairy tales, it's the same thing. Moot moo

I see what you mean now about the teapot. But still, until I hear that very arguement presented so that it is clear, I will not believe in it. About the santa fairy tales, it's the same thing. Moot moo

Nuh-uh, you've gotta disprove Santa first! :mad:

Without a rational disproof of Santa, there's no reason why you shouldn't still be believing in him!

Prove there is no God? No agnostic should be asking that question. It's too biased towards the existence of a god. Are you afraid someone might or reasonably confident that no one can? If 100% proof was presented then you would probably doubt it anyways.

Imagine that someday we find a way to travel back in time. We can send millions of chrononauts to every epoch, era, year, month, day, hour, minute or second. If we sent them all to cover the ascent of man and not one of them reports any god sightings upon their return, would you consider that proof? If not, what kind of proof would you require?

Has their been a thread or arguement ever in existence on the logical impossibility of Gods existence?
only about million times or so..
I hate to waste time repeating it especialy when its such a nice day outside so just read this
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/god

Thx scorpious.

And no, if everyone is still believing in god for a good reason, i'll always consider it possible...

How about: prove there is a god?

Sure. Want a link? It's proof enough to remain an agnostic....

There were several links in this post by light gigantic. However, you can probably see for yourself what he's saying. If not, tell me and I'll post these "links."

[quote=lightgigantic]existabrent



in short, god is the substance of truth
while religiosity is in the pursuit of knowledge of god, there are many religious practices which may not be considered eternal (or truthful in all circumstances) - like for instance a mother involved in religious practices would have different obligations than say a renunciate - however both the mother and renunciate would be expected to display the quality of surrender to god in order to be deemed religious.

This is why in the BG the conclusive statement is

BG 18.66: Abandon all varieties of religion (dharma) and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

in other words there are so many dharmas in this world (technically termed sva-dharma, or dharma that pertains to the material designation, ie - mother, renunciate, merchant, etc) - all these are subsidiary to the main dharma (technically called sanatana dharma, or eternal dharma) - surrender unto god

hence the previous two verses read

BG 18.64: Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.

BG 18.65: Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.


at least from the POV of a theistic philosophers, god exists without the possibility of not existing (unlike say a pair of sunglasses, which came into being at a certain point of time due to an arrangement of atoms and will cease to be at a certain point of time due to an arrangement of atoms)



the qualities of persons who have direct perception of god are given in scriptures (of which there are many)

NoI 1: A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.

in short, a person who has direct perception of god partakes of the same godly nature of god, since to associate with the topmost purity one must also be pure





the value of discussing personal perceptions of god is greatly diminished unless one has a stable foundation for discussion - for instance a conversation about the direct perception of gold would not amount to much unless one knew what gold was and its value.

in short though, the best way to see god is to act in such a way that he wants to see you - and the best way to do that is to humbly serve those persons who are dear to him (his great devotees) - so the foundation is understanding who is god and what are the qualities of persons who are dear to him

otherwise one runs the risk of winding up with fools gold.



Ok. Let's see your response sniffy *rolls eyes*

proof please

Proof of what?

i think i'm repeating myself proof there is a god/s

i think i'm repeating myself proof there is a god/s

is it possible to address the issue of proof (in any field of knowledge) without first meeting the prerequisites to verify/falsify evidence?

I've still yet to see a conclusive disproof of Santa Claus. What's up with that existaberant?

I've still yet to see a conclusive disproof of Santa Claus. What's up with that existaberant?
Santa claus does exist (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=23)

Santa claus does exist (http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=23)

Thanks for the link lightgigantic. However, that talks about the origins behind the current idea of Santa Claus, which is pot bellied guy with nice beard and red suit who delivers presents to good kids on Christmas eve on his flying reindeer driven sleigh. I'm talking about that current idea specifically.

Thanks for the link lightgigantic. However, that talks about the origins behind the current idea of Santa Claus, which is pot bellied guy with nice beard and red suit who delivers presents to good kids on Christmas eve on his flying reindeer driven sleigh. I'm talking about that current idea specifically.

then you need to read this (http://homepage.eircom.net/~lrtc/projects/santa.html)

then you need to read this (http://homepage.eircom.net/~lrtc/projects/santa.html)

Yes but Santa uses magic to do all that. The laws of physics and the like don't apply to him.

Yes but Santa uses magic to do all that. The laws of physics and the like don't apply to him.

then if you read the first link, you can find some issues that need to be addressed

then if you read the first link, you can find some issues that need to be addressed

Such as? I did skim through it rather quickly, I admit, but I saw nothing that couldn't be explained by Santa's magic.

I slept with a female Santa last Xmas. It felt real enough.

I slept with a female Santa last Xmas. It felt real enough.

Unless your female Santa did magic tricks, and the kind of tricks that I would call magic tricks, then sorry, doesn't qualify in my search for a disproof. Thanks for sharing though.

Such as? I did skim through it rather quickly, I admit, but I saw nothing that couldn't be explained by Santa's magic.

in short, it requires one examine the qualities of persons who are advocating santa (as in the sleigh riding red suit wearing version) is real.

I think you will find two categories of such persons

1) Children on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) Atheists/agnostics on the basis of rhetoric

in short, it requires one examine the qualities of persons who are advocating santa (as in the sleigh riding red suit wearing version) is real.

I think you will find two categories of such persons

1) Children on the basis of a poor fund of knowledge
2) Atheists/agnostics on the basis of rhetoric

I agree, it's good to keep in mind the quality of the person behind the claim.

However, that still doesn't give me any actual proof for the nonexistence of that version of Santa.

I agree, it's good to keep in mind the quality of the person behind the claim.

However, that still doesn't give me any actual proof for the nonexistence of that version of Santa.

serious flaws in the normative descriptions behind such claims is a more than sufficient as a healthy indication