If there's no God...

[Enmos]

Yes you can, and so of course no evidence could ever be given against any imaginary thing existing(well along the lines of unicorns, flying men etc). The probability of them will be very close to zero, but never actually zero unless you knew for certain they didn't exist, but you cannot do that and so you can believe the probability to be zero or you can accept you can never be certain.

Exactly. Now apply this reasoning to God.

[Norsefire]

No, but before there was any evidence of bacteria there was no reason to assume they existed.
Besides, you have said it yourself: you cannot research God. You can research bacteria.. because they exist.

If you can't research God how can you say it exists ?

Bacteria exist IN OUR "REALM" (what we know)

Bacteria exist in our world


If a Creator exists, I doubt he would be within our "realm"
He would be beyond it
And therefore
He doesn't exist
In our realm
He exists beyond it

Nonetheless
He exists

(assuming he is real)

[capelli]

Exactly. Now apply this reasoning to God.

I already have; I cannot be certain of the existence of a god or not.

[Enmos]

Bacteria exist IN OUR "REALM" (what we know)

Bacteria exist in our world


If a Creator exists, I doubt he would be within our "realm"
He would be beyond it
And therefore
He doesn't exist
In our realm
He exists beyond it

Nonetheless
He exists

(assuming he is real)

Ahem.. you're kind of contradicting yourself

[Enmos]

I already have; I cannot be certain of the existence of a god or not.

Don't be cheap.
"Yes you can, and so of course no evidence could ever be given against God existing. The probability of God will be very close to zero, but never actually zero unless you knew for certain God didn't exist, but you cannot do that and so you can believe the probability to be zero or you can accept you can never be certain."

[capelli]

Don't be cheap.
"Yes you can, and so of course no evidence could ever be given against God existing. The probability of them will be very close to zero, but never actually zero unless you knew for certain they didn't exist, but you cannot do that and so you can believe the probability to be zero or you can accept you can never be certain."

Heh, knew you'd pick up on that, was going to edit it whilst you were replying but I thought I'd leave it. Insert "may be very close to zero" in my original post. In fact, come to think of it. If you know nothing about something(ie you have just imagined it) then I guess you can't really put a probability on its existence. I've actually always thought myself to be Agnostic leaning towards Atheism but that would be me putting a probability on the whole situation which I'm not sure you can do. I guess that leaves me completey Agnostic. Either way, if the existence of god were incredibly unlikely then can you really say it has probability zero? I'm really unlikely to win the lotto but that's not to say I won't.

[Enmos]

Heh, knew you'd pick up on that, was going to edit it whilst you were replying but I thought I'd leave it. Insert "may be very close to zero" in my original post. In fact, come to think of it. If you know nothing about something(ie you have just imagined it) then I guess you can't really put a probability on its existence. I've actually always thought myself to be Agnostic leaning towards Atheism but that would be me putting a probability on the whole situation which I'm not sure you can do. I guess that leaves me completey Agnostic. Either way, if the existence of god were incredibly unlikely then can you really say it has probability zero? I'm really unlikely to win the lotto but that's not to say I won't.

Using current knowledge of the universe and Earth-nature there isn't a hint of God's existence.. I would say this common knowledge lets us put a probability on it.
If we know that nothing even remotely works a certain way, why assume that there is one thing out there that does ?
The only reason that I don't say the probability is zero is because we just don't know everything, but everything sure seems to point to a zero probability..

[capelli]

Using current knowledge of the universe and Earth-nature there isn't a hint of God's existence.. I would say this common knowledge lets us put a probability on it.

I'm still thinking about this one, something about putting a probability on it doesn't seem to work. I agree, there isn't a hint any god or god's existence as far as I know. So yeah this would put a probability according to current knowledge very low, yeah that definitely makes sense. This probability would of course have the chance to increase should any evidence present itself.

If that we know even remotely nothing works a certain way, why assume that there is one thing out there that does ?

I'm really trying not to assume anything at all, maybe I have though, not sure if you've picked up on something I haven't.

The only reason that I don't say the probability is zero is because we just don't know everything, but everything sure seems to point to a zero probability..

Yeah I'd agree with most of that. Still not sure about putting a probability on an existence though. You say "evidence seems to point to a zero probability" but does it not make more sense to say "lack of evidence means we cannot put a high probability on the existence." Maybe I'm being picky but I think there's a difference there. Did you say you were agnostic by the way? Probability above zero means you are not certain, right?

[Enmos]

I'm still thinking about this one, something about putting a probability on it doesn't seem to work. I agree, there isn't a hint any god or god's existence as far as I know. So yeah this would put a probability according to current knowledge very low, yeah that definitely makes sense. This probability would of course have the chance to increase should any evidence present itself.

Well, I don't mean a probability like 0.8% or whatever, just that it's very low according to current understanding.

I'm really trying not to assume anything at all, maybe I have though, not sure if you've picked up on something I haven't.

No, I meant theists.. not you

Yeah I'd agree with most of that. Still not sure about putting a probability on an existence though. You say "evidence seems to point to a zero probability" but does it not make more sense to say "lack of evidence means we cannot put a high probability on the existence." Maybe I'm being picky but I think there's a difference there. Did you say you were agnostic by the way? Probability above zero means you are not certain, right?

Well, I consider current understanding of nature in general 'evidence'.
I don't think one can put a probability on God's existence, precisely because there is no evidence.
I do think one can put an estimate probability on God's non-existence though.

I guess I'm an atheist but leaning towards agnosticism. I believe that's called weak atheism but I can't be bothered lol

[ggazoo]

I already have; I cannot be certain of the existence of a god or not.

Exactly. The problem though is that many people today want "rational certainty". This is why many people today won't get married... they want this rational certainty. They aren't willing to take a risk. The same applies to a relationship with God.

[capelli]

I guess I'm an atheist but leaning towards agnosticism. I believe that's called weak atheism but I can't be bothered lol

Hmm didn't actually know about weak atheism but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism agnostics also fit the definition.

[Cris]

Noresefire,

Atheism is the silliest concept I have ever heard; for a mere mortal to claim that he knows the mysteries of the universe?
No atheist on Earth KNOWS if there is a God; they simply do not believe so.

Agnostics make the most sense: that they simply do not know.
The religious, at least, adhere to belief rather than attempting to spread their faith as a fact (like atheists)

For anybody to say "There is no God" or "There is a God and that's a fact", they are an idiot

Theism is the silliest concept I have ever heard; for a mere mortal to claim that he knows the mysteries of the universe?
No theist on Earth KNOWS if there is a God; they simply believe so.

Agnostics make the most sense: that they simply do not know.
The irreligious, at least, do not adhere to belief rather than attempting to spread their faith as a fact (like theists)

For anybody to say "There is a God" or "There is no God and that's a fact", they are an idiot.

I think what you really mean is that if someone makes an extraordinary claim than they ought to show extraordinary support for it. That seems to be relevant for those who assert “there is a god” equally for those who assert “there is no god”.

So what was your point?

[Cris]

Norsefire,

Again, unless you KNOW FOR A FACT that there is no God, then you should not say there is not; the logical reality is, that nobody knows.

And equaly true for those who claim TO KNOW FOR A FACT that there is a god, correct?

[Cris]

Ggazoo,

... then why do the atheists and agnostics spend so much time here arguing about it?

I've seen regulars on here who's post counts are into the thousands... why do you spend so much time and effort here if you don't believe in God anyway? If you think that God doesn't exist, why don't you move on with your lives instead of spending your time heckling Christians, and those of other faiths? Insecurity? Do you get off on it? Or do you really have nothing better to do with your free time? It's absolutely nothing personal, I'm just curious.

Because so much time is spent on here discussing God, to me that's a case for God, not against.

Two thirds of the planet population state they believe in some form of religious entity. That volume of belief presents itself as a huge potential for debate.

For the non-religious that fact offers a superb opportunity for entertainment but it says nothing for the support or non-support of religious entities.

[Myles]

Atheism is the silliest concept I have ever heard; for a mere mortal to claim that he knows the mysteries of the universe?
No atheist on Earth KNOWS if there is a God; they simply do not believe so.

Agnostics make the most sense: that they simply do not know.
The religious, at least, adhere to belief rather than attempting to spread their faith as a fact (like atheists)


For anybody to say "There is no God" or "There is a God and that's a fact", they are an idiot

Oh, we've got a right one here. What is a mere mortal ? An atheist would not use such language.

" No atheist on Earth..." do you believe there are atheists who are not on earth ? Maybe in heaven ?

Why is somebody who does not share your point of view an idiot ? Tell us why you are better informed; don't keep your wisdom to yourself !

The religious spend a lot of time spreading their propaganda and interfering in politics. Do you live on Mars ?

[KennyJC]

... then why do the atheists and agnostics spend so much time here arguing about it?

I've seen regulars on here who's post counts are into the thousands... why do you spend so much time and effort here if you don't believe in God anyway? If you think that God doesn't exist, why don't you move on with your lives instead of spending your time heckling Christians, and those of other faiths? Insecurity? Do you get off on it? Or do you really have nothing better to do with your free time? It's absolutely nothing personal, I'm just curious.

Because so much time is spent on here discussing God, to me that's a case for God, not against.

Because some of us have a hatred for bullshit.

I don't just spend my time on the bullshit of religion - It is also spent on Moon hoax bullshit, 9/11 conspiracy bullshit and general supernatural bullshit.

[Norsefire]

The more detail you give, the more ridiculous the concept becomes and less likely; however, as a core, the concept of a Creator is in no way ridiculous, and you can no more prove it's likeliness than it's existence.


In reality, neither atheists or theists have any proof, nor can they ever know until they are dead.

Therefore, we are back to belief (or lack of it); however, that being said, I believe it is better for society to have a moderate form of faith, than pure atheism.

[KennyJC]

The more detail you give, the more ridiculous the concept becomes and less likely; however, as a core, the concept of a Creator is in no way ridiculous, and you can no more prove it's likeliness than it's existence.

Just because there is no proof either way is does not make it a 50/50 thing. Those making claims without a shred of supporting evidence stand a near 100% likelihood of being false.

In reality, neither atheists or theists have any proof, nor can they ever know until they are dead.

You don't know anything when you are dead.

[shichimenshyo]

The more detail you give, the more ridiculous the concept becomes and less likely; however, as a core, the concept of a Creator is in no way ridiculous, and you can no more prove it's likeliness than it's existence.


In reality, neither atheists or theists have any proof, nor can they ever know until they are dead.

Therefore, we are back to belief (or lack of it); however, that being said, I believe it is better for society to have a moderate form of faith, than pure atheism.

Well you are entitled to your opinion as we are entitled to ours, and I dont know that I would ever make the claim that society should be devoid of religion. If you want to take a theistic approach what you believe by al means do so, but I myself look at the facts and lean towards the opposite end of the spectrum. Thats just me.

[Myles]

The more detail you give, the more ridiculous the concept becomes and less likely; however, as a core, the concept of a Creator is in no way ridiculous, and you can no more prove it's likeliness than it's existence.


In reality, neither atheists or theists have any proof, nor can they ever know until they are dead.

Therefore, we are back to belief (or lack of it); however, that being said, I believe it is better for society to have a moderate form of faith, than pure atheism.

The trouble with society is that there are too many people squabbling about faith, each wanting to outdo the other. Why not visit Pastor Phelps for a start, then head for Kansas.