The appearance of design is superficial, real life shows the kind of flaws as if they evolved. Anthropocentrism leads to human-like models of extraordinary events. Prayer doesn't work, this has been scientifically proven. There is no proof of miracles. The universe shows a trend of building on complexity, which makes it extremely unlikely that there were any complex forms in the chaotic and superheated early universe. The concept of God is inherently impossible. Anything with the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresense would have nothing to do. There would be no point in making a universe. Nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist. Perhaps none of these reasons is absolute proof God can't exist, but there are all sorts of extraordinary things I also cannot disprove. They do, however, make it such an unlikely premise that it would be silly to entertain.
lol We've gone over this discussion before LG. The onus of support falls to the more improbable position.
I guess I just dont understand this logic: Tooth fairy: invisible little fairy that takes your teeth and gives you money- Cant exist God: Big invisible "man" who watches you and gives you eternal life- Does exist Where do we draw the distinction? There is an equal amount of evidence for both so are not they both just as plausable?
and god does not exist is more probable because of what .....? science? lol however I think ...... The real point is, simply because once can conceive of a thing, doesn't entail that it may be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you guys are taking my meaning out of context. I am not saying by any means that there IS a God, nor am I trying to support such a belief. I am only asking why a God CANNOT EXIST. And therefore, while you guys bring up good points that there is no evidence, the fact remains that a God CAN exist; Likewise, there is no reason that God does NOT exist. In the end I think no one can know, not even atheists. Spidergoat, again, I never said God would govern the universe, only that he created it. And as for "why would he create it", I don't know. If there is a God, nobody can be able to comprehend Him. In the end, my point is, both atheism and theism is a belief (or lack of belief in atheists, but NOT FACT). Nobody on this Earth can know if there is a God; atheists cannot KNOW that there is no God. Therefore, we can only figure out after we are dead. If there is a God, all of us will find out in due time. If there is not, we will know nothing. While certainly I hope there is a God, I cannot say definitevly that there is nor can any atheist say, as fact, that there is not. We can only "know" after we have died, and if there is we will know, and if there is not, I do not know what would then happen. However, for atheists, please answer me this: how can nonliving materials, as we are made of Carbon, Water, and other nonliving elements and compounds, form conciousness? Keep in mind, I did not ask how they can form "life", but conciousness? This leads me to believe that there may be some sort of "life energy", or soul. Not that this supports the idea of a God, but that conciousness is due to a soul, and the body is what helps this "soul", if it exists (not that I am saying it does, but rather that it can), experience (senses) the universe and interpret it.
real life? you mean the peer reviewed variety? and mechanomorphism leads to mechanical models of extraordinary events given that consciousness is the dynamic by which prayer does or doesn't work, and consciousness has not been "scientifically" (aka empirically) proven, hardly surprising .... accepting empirical models as sufficient for giving the complete picture of "real life" has many holes - what to speak of seeing miracles, one cannot even see what one is seeing with (and no I don't mean eyeballs) yet despite this popular theory, there is no proof of life arising from a mere complexity of matter - rather life is seen to arise from life - and even then not in any broad genus swapping fashion that you would have us believe so far your argument boils down to these points there is no proof for god god is an anthropomorphic notion(tentative claim - no proof) the universe (including life) has evolved simply through systems built on complexity (again - no proof) seems like the only reason you have for rejecting god is that there is no proof and what you offer as an alternative also has no proof. circular argument according to your standards of pleasure perhaps, but then you are quite a distance from being omnimax or more correctly, nothing that is transcendental has been shown to exist within the purview of merely the blunt senses, much like no temperatures have been recorded with a tape measure (of course people who use the right tool for the job, namely a thermometer, have a different story to tell) given the feebleness of empiricism as a branch of holistic comprehension, its clear you must simply be talking of your values
Good point lightgigantic; we cannot know the supernatural does not exist because, if it does, we do not interpret on their level of conciousness. It's like describing sound to a creature without ears, or color to a creature without eyes.
Consciousness comes from the neural network of the brain. It's just information, it's a neat invention, but not impossible to reproduce: http://www.imagination-engines.com/ie.htm The main reason there is no God is that no one can even define what that is. You say things like "nobody can be able to comprehend Him". Such a concept cannot be disproven because it's too vague. It's unfalsifiable. If I was able to search the entire universe for God, you would just say that it's outside our universe.
Obviously God would not be inside the universe.......he created it. But that's my point, nobody can KNOW, only believe. And conciousness stemming from nonliving material?
Indeed. Once upon a time, people were struck dead by 'magic'. In time, we grew to understand that they were really 'struck down' by a bacterium. I'm sure we'll never agree on the god concept in general, but I will always place my faith in the inductive methodology that has enriched our lives and understanding rather than a purported divinity any day. As to the OP: Can god (as yet defined feasibly) exist? Yes. Is it probable? No. On that, I am in complete agreement with you.
I see, God can exist because anything you can think of can exist, like a being outside our universe. I think a more rational explanation for our situation is that simple units that can combine in different ways formed higher and higher levels of connectedness and organization. All that had to happen is that the universe cooled.
I said not life, but conciousness. You're talking about a concious entity arising from carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc, but how does it work? Why am I concious? And what is conciousness? To have such "conciousness", to interpret, feel, understand, desire, intend, this cannot arise from mere nonliving matter; that is why we, perhaps, have souls.
Or your percived conciousness is just a reaction stemming from the compostition and arrangement of the neurons carbon etc etc that make up your body and the electric curretns flowing through it. Now does energy=a soul?...to some maybe, but The idea that the concious part of us continues to exist even after we die just seems to me like a concept created out of a profound fear of not existing anymore.
the problem is that without consciousness, information remains merely information. In other words thinking feeling and willing is what makes information valuable. Without the conscious interpretation of the designers, the results of the imagination engine are useless. Even people involved in the field agree to this One of the most distinguished computer scientists in the world today, Prof. J. Weizenbaum is known for his major contributions to the field of Artificial Intelligence. He authored the famous ELIZA program (fore-runner of DOCTOR and other similar programs) which startlingly demonstrated the possibilities for building 'intelligent effects' into a computer through programming. Weizenbaum is also the author of Computer Power and Human Reasoning from Calculation to Judgement in which he critically examines the far-reaching social implications of research and philosophical assumptions regarding artificial intelligence. basically there are three stages to any investigation theory practice conclusion Obviously if one messes up on the theory (as you indicate) there is no scope for practice, what to speak of conclusion. If however anyone wants to argue that there is no adequate theory to begin the practice of understanding god, I would strongly disagree however.
Just curious LG, what's wrong with then defining "thinking feeling and willing" as merely information?
