Thread: About this "99.99...%" thing

There is no possible way that there could be 100% certain atheists, because no matter what proof they have to disproove God there will always be the theory that God put the "proof" there as a test of faith.

no, I mean, how did they come to the conclusion that there is no God and that everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. What evidence do they have?

Originally Posted by Keeper

no, I mean, how did they come to the conclusion that there is no God and that everyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. What evidence do they have?

I think the point is that there is no evidence that there is a god. Realizing this, the conclusion makes pretty much sense.

Umm... How did anyone come to the conclusion about anything? For example reality, especially as a dreamer one should be aware of the fact that you might wake up at any moment. So why do you keep living? Where is the proof for this reality, or what proof do you have to prove this isn't a dream?

Also skysaw is correct

If God were to send me to hell for not being a christian then he's not being very fair. I have no real reason to believe in God except for a book. People can't be expected to blindly follow a God that they have no reason to believe exists. It just doesn't make sense. Basically, for most people, belief in God is a huge gamble.

What proof is there that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

What proof is there that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

The Bible

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What proof is there that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?

I asked a simple question. Let me re-phrase: Why are YOU an atheist?


Anyhow, so Sky, you are an atheist because there is a lack of proof? Is that the only reason or a major one?

I am an atheist because the evidence that god does not exist far outweighs the evidence that he does exist.

Evidence that God exists:
The Bible

Evidence that the Bible is wrong:
soo much.. there are other threads to talk about it.


Apart from that, I just could never bring myself to believe that there's some all powerful invisible thing up there that made the world and everything on it. It's just too unlikely. Why on Earth should it be true?

Anyhow, so Sky, you are an atheist because there is a lack of proof? Is that the only reason or a major one?

Sky also has a lack of belife of santa claus. Both have no evidence.

I have a lack of belife of santa claus and god too. Both have no evidence.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Sky also has a lack of belife of santa claus. Both have no evidence.

I have a lack of belife os santa claus and god too. Both have no evidence.

Like the Atom to the Greeks?

I take it that this is also your main reason?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I asked a simple question. Let me re-phrase: Why are YOU an atheist?

It is an incredibly far fetched concept that has no proof. If you define God as a being that is infinitely powerful and totally good, then my answer is that the existence of suffering proves that there is no such being. Such a being could make it where suffering is completely UNNECESSARY and nonexistent. If he has that power and doesn't use it, he is not totally good.

Now please answer my question. Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Relate your answer to mine about God.

Originally Posted by Keeper

Like the Atom to the Greeks?

Yes. Just like that. Except that science confirmed the existence of the atom quite some time ago. No such progress has been made for God.

Like the Atom to the Greeks?

No or yes but
The greeks concept of Atom came from mathematics and the idea that their is a point where something can't be broken up. Plus their atomic picture was really poor as atoms don't act like normal everyday objects.
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/...re/Greeks.html
Atoms act like normal particles when you measure them, however when you don't they act like waves. Basic quantum physics.

I take it that this is also your main reason?

If I don't base my belife on evidence then I am not much better then a child who bases their belife on imagination.

If you define God as a being that is infinitely powerful and totally good, then my answer is that the existence of suffering proves that there is no such being

I will like to add that a infinitely powerful being is also contradictory as you will end up with the stone paradox. Logic itself says that god is impossible as you end up with a paradox.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is an incredibly far fetched concept that has no proof. If you define God as a being that is infinitely powerful and totally good, then my answer is that the existence of suffering proves that there is no such being. Such a being could make it where suffering is completely UNNECESSARY and nonexistent. If he has that power and doesn't use it, he is not totally good.

I am not referring to a God of a curtain nature, I am simply referring to a Creator.

Now please answer my question. Why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Relate your answer to mine about God.

I will try, but what exactly do you mean by "relate my answer to yours about God"? Must I give it by definition or some such? After you clarify this for me I will

[edit]

Originally Posted by Wendy

No or yes but
The greeks concept of Atom came from mathematics and the idea that their is a point where something can't be broken up. Plus their atomic picture was really poor as atoms don't act like normal everyday objects.

True, but bare in mind that they only had so much understanding of matters many not take for granted.

If I don't base my belife on evidence then I am not much better then a child who bases their belife on imagination.

So you feel Belief is a childish thing? Be that as it may, is that your only reason?

I will like to add that a infinitely powerful being is also contradictory as you will end up with the stone paradox.

There is a way around that, but most people would think of the answer as a cop-out: God can re-wright logic or Human minds can't comprehend the answer ...

Originally Posted by wendylove

I will like to add that a infinitely powerful being is also contradictory as you will end up with the stone paradox.

That too.

Originally Posted by Keeper

what exactly do you mean by "relate my answer to yours about God"? Must I give it by definition or some such? After you clarify this for me I will

I expect he means that once you have said why you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, then look at your answer and that will be largely the same as the reason why he doesn't believe in God.

Originally Posted by Keeper

I am not referring to a God of a curtain nature, I am simply referring to a Creator.

It is an incredibly far fetched concept that has no proof. Now please tell me why you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can go from there.

There is a way around that, but most people would think of the answer as a cop-out: God can re-wright logic or Human minds can't comprehend the answer

Not only is their no evidence you have to abandon logic to believe in god. Logic is aboslute you can't rewrite it and logic has nothing to do with the human mind it to do with proof and mathematics.

So you feel Belief is a childish thing? Be that as it may, is that your only reason?

Well; god
.No evidence
.Makes no logical sense

9/11 planned by bush
.No evidence
.Makes no logical sense

Santa claus
.No evidence
.Makes no logical sense

The universe revolves around Earth
. No evidence
. Makes no logical sense

Only believing in stuff that has evidence and makes logical sense. I think I will stick to that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That too.

I was editing while you were responding to that. I basically said that it is possible, but most people don't think the answer counts.

Originally Posted by Lord Toaster

I expect he means that once you have said why you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, then look at your answer and that will be largely the same as the reason why he doesn't believe in God.

Thank you

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It is an incredibly far fetched concept that has no proof. Now please tell me why you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We can go from there.

Okay

I don't exactly not believe in the FSM. I believe in a Creator (for the same reason I don't believe there isn't one) who's nature I can't imagine. AS it is, however, the Creator I believe in revieled himself to Man long ago, and from this all other (or most) religions developed (there are other explanations to the similarities between religion, but I personally feel this one is right (could be wrong, though ... )). Anyhow, the FSM was a diliberatly made parody of the Creator, and well this may actually be God's nature, I doubt it, as it contradicts the old religions, which I believe to be the most accurate. (of which no doubt, you reject as authentic and/or correct). I realize I may have just opened myself up for a number of questions and accusations, but could we move this to my "Ask me" thread?

Anyhow, Looking back at what you said, I do not see any similarities ...

Now, back to what I asked: So, aside from lack of evidence, is there any other reason that you have for not believing in God?

I'm not saying lack of evidence isn't relevant (nor am I saying that is is not a good enough reason to doubt on its own), but I would like to know if that is it.

[edit]

Well; god
.No evidence
.Makes no logical sense

Not making sense doesn't count. It makes sense to me and many others, so your own personal beliefs aren't enough to make it wrong. Also, you are referring to your logic (or just human logic), which is NOT an absolute.

9/11 planned by bush
.No evidence
.Makes no logical sense

Okay ...

Santa claus
.No evidence
.Makes no logical sense

No!

The universe revolves around Earth
. No evidence
. Makes no logical sense

Ancient Greek to the one who thought about the Atom:

Atom
.No evidence
.Makes no sense

WE have all the answers now. There is nothing left to learn. Go and die, old man. We don't need your "ideas" hahahahaha!

Do you see what I mean?

Only believing in stuff that has evidence and makes logical sense. I think I will stick to that.

In a bit (not today, to much to do) I would like to have a conversation with you about that

Not making sense doesn't count. It makes sense to me and many others, so your own personal beliefs aren't enough to make it wrong. Also, you are referring to your logic (or just human logic), which is NOT an absolute.

Sense and logical sense is different.
God is logically impossible because it leads to a stone paradox. Hence the word logically impossible. I don't believe in stuff that is logically impossible.

Logic is absolute or should I say mathematical logic, which is basically logic. If your thinking philosophy logic, I don't mean that. Mathematics is absolute, the pythagoras theorem is always going to be true.

So we have no evidence for god and god is logically impossible because he leads to a paradox.

Atom
.No evidence
.Makes no sense

WE have all the answers now. There is nothing left to learn. Go and die, old man. We don't need your "ideas" hahahahaha!

Atom had no evidence at the time. However it made mathematical sense. The greek mathematician used the concept of division and infinte to prove their was a point where you can't get smaller, then they called the object a atom. This makes perfect logic sense all they saying is divide something up infintly and you get the smallest thing called a atom.

The Paradox of the Stone

God is all-powerful, or as theologians put it, “omnipotent”; there is nothing that he cannot do. This is part of the definition of “God”.

So can God create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t.

If God can’t, then he isn’t all-powerful. If God can’t create a stone that he can’t lift, then there is something that he can’t do: create the stone.

If God can create a stone that is so heavy that he can’t lift it, though, then he also isn’t all-powerful. If God can create a stone that is so heavy that he can’t lift it, then there’s something that he can’t do: lift that stone.

There is, therefore, no way of answering the question above that preserves God’s omnipotence. If there is an omnipotent God, then he neither can nor can’t create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. This, though, is absurd; he must be either able or unable to perform this feat.

This is the paradox of omnipotence. Many critics of theism have used it to argue that the concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory, that there can be no omnipotent being, and so that God cannot exist.

http://www.logicalparadoxes.info/stone.html
Did you read that keeper. A proof against god, mathematical logic is great!

Originally Posted by wendylove

Sense and logical sense is different.
God is logically impossible because it leads to a stone paradox. Hence the word logically impossible. I don't believe in stuff that is logically impossible.

Oh, we are going to have a lot of fun!

Anyhow, the Stone Paradox is only a paradox if you except one thing:
God is incapable of violating Logics laws (therefor not OP)

Logic is absolute or should I say mathematical logic, which is basically logic.

In every universe, at every moment since before time and after its end? Logic is not as powerful as you believe, and even if it is, you are also basing your assumptions on the oh so limited data available, and on the nature of a being you don't even believe in. Your knowledge on the subject is far from perfect, as is mine.

What is logical to you may not be what is logical to me ... or God.

If your thinking philosophy logic, I don't mean that. Mathematics is absolute, the pythagoras theorem is always going to be true.

That is not the issue.

So we have no evidence for god and god is logically impossible because he leads to a paradox.

YOUR definition of God maybe. See above.

Now, clearly STATE (don't explain just yet; we are getting there ...) your reasons for disbelieving in God. We need to go through this logically (don't even say it ... ).

[edit]

Atom had no evidence at the time. However it made mathematical sense.

To who? The other learned Greeks didn't agree ... the great Mathematicians ...

The greek mathematician used the concept of division and infinte to prove their was a point where you can't get smaller, then they called the object a atom.

Actually, they believed that you could always get smaller. THAT is mathematically sound ...

This makes perfect logic sense all they saying is divide something up infintly and you get the smallest thing called a atom.

But the Atom isn't infinitely small ...

Now, about that list ...

Anyhow, the Stone Paradox is only a paradox if you except one thing:
God is incapable of violating Logics laws (therefor not OP)

So you're saying we have to abandon laws of logic to believe in god. 2+2=4 nobody can change it so 2+2=5, these are the laws of logic. If you have two apples and add another two apples you can never get five apples. You're trying to say we have to abandon logic so we can believe 2+2=5

Your knowledge on the subject is far from perfect, as is mine

Thats not the point, logic is perfect as 2+2=4. You can't change that and nor can a god change the laws of logic.

That is not the issue.

Yes it is, logic is the issue. Pythagoras is logical. god is not logic as their is a paradox
if x^2+y^2 did not equal z^2 then pythagoras would have been proven wrong. logic has dis proven god and now you want to say god can break it.

Now, clearly STATE (don't explain just yet; we are getting there ...) your reasons for disbelieving in God. We need to go through this logically (don't even say it ... ).

Can god create a stone that he can't lift
If yes then he is not all powerful as he can't lift the stone
If no then he is not all powerful as he can't create something he can't lift

Their is no flaw in the argument, the anwser can't be yes and the anwser can't be no. So it is safe to assume that god does not exsist.

2+2=4 it cannot =5. Again you can't break logic, you can abandon it to believe in unlogical things however 2+2 will always =4.

To who? The other learned Greeks didn't agree ... the great Mathematicians ...

Good question. The greek mathematician didn't understand infinty that much and even killed someone who proved irrational numbers. Greek mathematician had no disproof of infinty so they rejected because of philosophy reasons. Note they did use the concepts of atom which basically makes up platonism.

But the Atom isn't infinitely small ...

The atom is made up of quarks which is made up of quantum energy which is the smallest thing possible, quantum mechanics says you can only get as small as the plank scale. So infinity is the plank scale, saying that quantum mechanics is strange.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So you're saying we have to abandon laws of logic to believe in god.

No, we have to abandon the laws of Logic to believe in YOUR definition of God (A God who can do anything except get himself out of a paradox). Actually, YOU are the one abandoning Logic ...
If God can do anything, then getting out of a Paradox is easy.

Unless you think Humans can comprehend the Older Mysteries of the Universe ...

2+2=4 nobody can change it so 2+2=5,

2.4 (rounds down to 2) +2.4 = 4.8 (rounds up to 5)
I know what you are saying, but THAT part of Logic has nothing to do with this.

these are the laws of logic.

We have been over this. You don't have to explain logic to anyone. Everyone knows what Logic is.

If you have two apples and add another two apples you can never get five apples. You're trying to say we have to abandon logic so we can believe 2+2=5

You are saying we have to except that the God who made Logic can be trapped by it. That someone who can do anything can't escape from a net. And this is only if God is Omnipotent. The Paradox contradicts itself.

Thats not the point, logic is perfect as 2+2=4. You can't change that and nor can a god change the laws of logic.

You don't have to keep repeating yourself. I hope I don't have to do the same.

Logic is dependent on the Universe in questions, anyhow, but that is another topic altogether ...

Yes it is, logic is the issue. Pythagoras is logical. god is not logic as their is a paradox

Not logical to you, but to me He is. Which one of us is right? Base your answer on that alone.

if x^2+y^2 did not equal z^2 then pythagoras would have been proven wrong. logic has dis proven god and now you want to say god can break it.

See above.

Now, about that list ...

[edit]

Good question. The greek mathematician didn't understand infinty that much and even killed someone who proved irrational numbers. Greek mathematician had no disproof of infinty so they rejected because of philosophy reasons. Note they did use the concepts of atom which basically makes up platonism.

So you agree that their Logic was flawed?