No Proof is NO PROOF for Inexistence of God.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


I just don't see the point of needlessly arguing about what people should or shouldn't believe - it is a personal decision, not a binding contract that a certain path must be chosen.

Yes religion has caused many problems throughout history. But lets face it, so has something as seemingly innocent as salt (wars for control of deposits, etc).

My experience throughout life so far has been that for every religious zealot (of any faith) that i have encountered i have met many many very religious people that are perfectly normal, well adjusted and balanced individuals that try to do the right thing where other individuals are concerned. So, do i judge religion by the actions of the few or by the actions of the many? (not that i do or should judge but i am sure you get my point).

In my opinion, the Salvation Army (for example) believe in an entity that doesn't exist. However, they do so much good for people because of their beliefs in this entity. So, who is right? Me for thinking there beliefs are wrong or them for all the good they do?

Regardless of belief, we are all the same species.




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
We believe a driver of a car on the hope that he will overtake or pass us carefully, or drive carefully, so we believe in pilots, railway drivers etc. It comes down to faith.

To grow in faith one needs to have a personal relationship with our Creator. One needs to take time out everyday and meditate/pray cos' its the only way to grow.

As many believe the Bible is just a fairytale we need to remember that His Son walked the earth without a Bible. He, as many others, meditated, and that's how they were close to Him.

I wonder how many of those people whom don't believe have tried to have a conversation with Him via deep meditation. Going down on your knees and saying words without going in a theta type state will find it hard to experience a personal relationship with Him. It's easy to write Him off as we find it difficult to "reach" Him. It is a blessing to believe and trust in Him, even though you have not seen Him.

Since the beginning man disgraced Him. Today many of these men who say to be "men of God" and they go around doing that what is not of Him. These men have caused many to stop believing, or just not to believe. Your trust cannot be put into man or their word. We need to have personal relationship with Him, and then we shall be lead. The path is not easy, even for those who walk it to the best of their ability in His name, it can be a nightmare and dark. We all give up on hope, trust and we start to doubt making us weak and breaking the soul.

Faith, that is the answer.

edit on 09/02/2012 by KaelemJames because: spelling



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Unicorns.

There is zero proof that unicorns exist, but there are books and stories about them.

Does that mean unicorns exist?

DC



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by logical7
 


I just don't see the point of needlessly arguing about what people should or shouldn't believe - it is a personal decision, not a binding contract that a certain path must be chosen.

Yes religion has caused many problems throughout history. But lets face it, so has something as seemingly innocent as salt (wars for control of deposits, etc).

My experience throughout life so far has been that for every religious zealot (of any faith) that i have encountered i have met many many very religious people that are perfectly normal, well adjusted and balanced individuals that try to do the right thing where other individuals are concerned. So, do i judge religion by the actions of the few or by the actions of the many? (not that i do or should judge but i am sure you get my point).

In my opinion, the Salvation Army (for example) believe in an entity that doesn't exist. However, they do so much good for people because of their beliefs in this entity. So, who is right? Me for thinking there beliefs are wrong or them for all the good they do?

Regardless of belief, we are all the same species.

i agree with you but thats a stand from a atheist view(i am assuming you are)
but a belief in God naturally gives the idea of an afterlife so the theist cant be similar to atheist about 'live n let live'
then it gets annoying. Maybe the atheist take the opposite extreme just to annoy back.
Dont you think finding the answer about God is required?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


No, i honestly do not think finding the answer about God is either important or necessary any more. We have advanced as a species to such a stage where questions about God become redundant. However, religion still has a vital role to play in that it teaches compassion and understanding of our fellow man.

For me, this is where religion has it completely spot on. We are all the same species, regardless of appearance of belief. We have to learn how to co-operate and how to work for the best for all of us. Religion is one avenue that allows this message to spread.

I understand that is rather a simplistic view to many here who have strong religious belief. I do not mean to offend anyone who has such strongly held convictions.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 





No, i honestly do not think finding the answer about God is either important or necessary any more.

i dont get this. Was God necessary before?
The atheist have a higher rate of suicides,
as you said, having a belief is good.
An existence without purpose will seem pointless to an atheist.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

The only rational stand is a 50% chance of God existing or in short "Maybe."


No, you can form an opinion on prioristic grounds. That you cannot be "100%" certain is uninteresting. You cannot be 100% certain about any contingent uncertainty. (You can think you are, however, that illustrates that you cannot be 100% certain about self-knowledge, a specific kind of contingent uncertainty.)

A rational prioristic opinion needn't be equipoise, and if equipoise, capital-G god is one hypothesis among many serious possibilities (or is it three hypotheses, maybe four?). My opinion could easily be 1000-1 against each of 1000 god claims, plus the possibility of no god at all. 1000 would seem conservative for the number of serious god claims there are. As I recall, there were supposedly 300 or more gods just in the single indigenous religion of Arabia that Islam replaced. Many people were willing to die for the truth of those gods, and many people were killed, so I think their claims count as "serious."



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:57 AM
link   
But no proof is still no proof for the existence of god. You could say the same for literally anything that you make up in your imagination. It still defies all logic, has no evidence and was fabricated by man very recently relative to human history (or life on Earth's history).


Originally posted by logical7
having no proof of a statement only has 50% chance of it being false.


Nope, that is not true. First of all you're forgetting the thousands of other gods and religions, and there is no percentage, it doesn't work like that. You're either wrong or you're right.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


God or no God is the 1st step.
How many, 1,3 or millions comes later.
You are basically saying to drop it by complaining that its too complicated so lets just believe what we believe.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
But no proof is still no proof for the existence of god. You could say the same for literally anything that you make up in your imagination. It still defies all logic, has no evidence and was fabricated by man very recently relative to human history (or life on Earth's history).


Originally posted by logical7
having no proof of a statement only has 50% chance of it being false.


Nope, that is not true. First of all you're forgetting the thousands of other gods and religions, and there is no percentage, it doesn't work like that. You're either wrong or you're right.

i never denied what you say. I am just saying that isnt the whole of science based on trying to know the yet unknown?
Why just deny God because there is no proof, rather doubt and try to find out. Isnt that rational?
I am also not claiming monotheism, just the title uses 'GOD' read it God/Gods if that is more general.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by SpearMint
But no proof is still no proof for the existence of god. You could say the same for literally anything that you make up in your imagination. It still defies all logic, has no evidence and was fabricated by man very recently relative to human history (or life on Earth's history).


Originally posted by logical7
having no proof of a statement only has 50% chance of it being false.


Nope, that is not true. First of all you're forgetting the thousands of other gods and religions, and there is no percentage, it doesn't work like that. You're either wrong or you're right.

i never denied what you say. I am just saying that isnt the whole of science based on trying to know the yet unknown?
Why just deny God because there is no proof, rather doubt and try to find out. Isnt that rational?
I am also not claiming monotheism, just the title uses 'GOD' read it God/Gods if that is more general.


Because all religions are creations of man, it's not a scientific hypothesis. It's much better to create hypotheses using evidence and logic than take wild stabs in the dark and consider them to be a possibility.
edit on 12-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

God or no God is the 1st step.


No. Rational belief is trajectory independent. I should come to the same conclusion on the same body of evidence and the same hypothesis set, regardless of how I organize the analysis.


You are basically saying to drop it by complaining that its too complicated so lets just believe what we believe.


No, I am saying your analysis is not rationally obligatory, contrary to your claim.

I can hardly recommend that anybody drop the question. besides, I don't think it is all that complicated, especially since we are so lightly burdened with evidence, and what evidence there is often patent nonsense.

In any case, regardless of what I say, people will believe just what they believe. How can it be otherwise? We do not choose our beliefs, we find ourselves persuaded or else we do not.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 


50% proof??? wth? there is absolutely no proof! Just because someone create something from delusion does not mean, logical people have to prove the delusional persons delusion...


Its like me saying that there is a rock in my backyard that talks to me and sometimes mows my lawn but it only does it when it wants to. Can you prove me that does not exist? since you cannot, does that mean its a 50% proof that it does?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
The only rational stand is a 50% chance of God existing or in short "Maybe"


I'll concede to this if you'll agree that there's also a 50% chance that the Humagooblinuphagus exists.
There's no proof he does, and there's no proof he doesn't. So, there's the same chance that God exists as there is that the Humagooblinuphagus exists.

And I can live with that.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Exactly. And it doesn't actually matter either way. What does matter are people's actions and their intentions, NOT what they happen to choose to believe.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by SpearMint
But no proof is still no proof for the existence of god. You could say the same for literally anything that you make up in your imagination. It still defies all logic, has no evidence and was fabricated by man very recently relative to human history (or life on Earth's history).


Originally posted by logical7
having no proof of a statement only has 50% chance of it being false.


Nope, that is not true. First of all you're forgetting the thousands of other gods and religions, and there is no percentage, it doesn't work like that. You're either wrong or you're right.

i never denied what you say. I am just saying that isnt the whole of science based on trying to know the yet unknown?
Why just deny God because there is no proof, rather doubt and try to find out. Isnt that rational?
I am also not claiming monotheism, just the title uses 'GOD' read it God/Gods if that is more general.


Because all religions are creations of man, it's not a scientific hypothesis. It's much better to create hypotheses using evidence and logic than take wild stabs in the dark and consider them to be a possibility.
edit on 12-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

the hypothesis is simple.
1)I exist
2) I did not create myself
therefore i must have been created.Now the discussion would go on evolution!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 





Rational belief is trajectory independent. I should come to the same conclusion on the same body of evidence and the same hypothesis set, regardless of how I organize the analysis.

ofcourse but why should i take a labour intensive trajectory. When, if i take god or no god approach and reach 'no god' i will be saved a lot of effort in checking the 1000 possibilites you suggest. I am lazy!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
The only rational stand is a 50% chance of God existing or in short "Maybe"


I'll concede to this if you'll agree that there's also a 50% chance that the Humagooblinuphagus exists.
There's no proof he does, and there's no proof he doesn't. So, there's the same chance that God exists as there is that the Humagooblinuphagus exists.

And I can live with that.

i can easily agree to that!
As the Humagooblinuphagus wouldnt affect me either way, but God on the other hand can make my afterlife hell, literally!!
This again is a difference in approach, you are speaking from a certainty that may not be so certain. I see your side, do you see mine?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by logical7
 



Originally posted by logical7
As the Humagooblinuphagus wouldnt affect me either way, but God on the other hand can make my afterlife hell, literally!!


God doesn't affect me either, so we're good.
Humagooblinuphagus, on the other hand...




...you are speaking from a certainty that may not be so certain.


What certainty have I claimed?
You're making the claims. See your above claim about the afterlife...




I see your side, do you see mine?


I see it. Don't agree with it, but that's OK.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by SpearMint

Originally posted by logical7

Originally posted by SpearMint
But no proof is still no proof for the existence of god. You could say the same for literally anything that you make up in your imagination. It still defies all logic, has no evidence and was fabricated by man very recently relative to human history (or life on Earth's history).


Originally posted by logical7
having no proof of a statement only has 50% chance of it being false.


Nope, that is not true. First of all you're forgetting the thousands of other gods and religions, and there is no percentage, it doesn't work like that. You're either wrong or you're right.

i never denied what you say. I am just saying that isnt the whole of science based on trying to know the yet unknown?
Why just deny God because there is no proof, rather doubt and try to find out. Isnt that rational?
I am also not claiming monotheism, just the title uses 'GOD' read it God/Gods if that is more general.


Because all religions are creations of man, it's not a scientific hypothesis. It's much better to create hypotheses using evidence and logic than take wild stabs in the dark and consider them to be a possibility.
edit on 12-2-2013 by SpearMint because: (no reason given)

the hypothesis is simple.
1)I exist
2) I did not create myself
therefore i must have been created.Now the discussion would go on evolution!


The fact that you exist is not evidence that you were created. I said "It's much better to create hypotheses using evidence and logic".





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join