You Cannot Prove Zeus doesn't Exist

Originally posted by inimalist
how anthropic

mind explaining what makes you better than an ant without it boiling down to you are better at being human?

Ahhh I knew somebody was going to pick up on that....basterd 😛 This reminds me of what a guy said about cockroaches in the heroes series. He explained how cockroaches were so much superior to humans and deduced that god must be a cockroach.

Originally posted by inimalist

so of course, there must be something even better at being human out there than we are 😉

Ok well this is how I see it. Wether a human is more superior to an ant is really subjective BUT a human is more powerful than an ant (not proportional strength, but a human could just squash an ant). My point about me spittining on the ant was really about perception, if there are beings like us it seems to me that there must also be other beings that are aware of our existance but we are not fully aware or are oblivous to them. A god cries it rains *shrug*

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ahhh I knew somebody was going to pick up on that....basterd 😛 This reminds me of what a guy said about cockroaches in the heroes series. He explained how cockroaches were so much superior to humans and deduced that god must be a cockroach.

insects are much better adapted to this planet, and much more essential to the biosphere, than humans will ever be 😉

Originally posted by Alfheim
Ok well this is how I see it. Wether a human is more superior to an ant is really subjective BUT a human is more powerful than an ant (not proportional strength, but a human could just squash an ant). My point about me spittining on the ant was really about perception, if there are beings like us it seems to me that there must also be other beings that are aware of our existance but we are not fully aware or are oblivous to them. A god cries it rains *shrug*

but the thing is, if you don't know where it's comming from, I could spit on you and you might hazard a guess that it was starting to rain.

This is just anthropizing what "power" is, in this case in relation to what was evolutionarily beneficial for the human anscestor's being valued as better than what was evolutionarily beneficial for ant anscestor's, and the final logic being that your ability to choose and execute the action of killing the ant shows you are superior to it. by that logic we could then assume that the most powerful creatures on the planet are virisus and bacteria, and that elephants, due to their ability to trample people, represent something closer to God than ourselves.

But, the spit analogy goes even further to proving my point. As humans, we do have something that makes us unique in the animal kingdom. Whatever we want to define it is (totally unimportant here) it allows us to do the thing that we like to think makes us "better" than other animals (although it only makes us better at doing the things that made us better adapted to our environment). If you are spit on, you can look around, check the weather, observe things and compare them to your past experience. All of that is dependent on you having a sensory system that, by tautological principal has to be more complex than that of an ant, and a remarkable memory, which an ant, strangely, probably has (though clearly not like humans). Suppose you see me standing there laughing, you are then able to use your super complex motor system and social communicative systems to discern why it is i am laughing. In other words, you, based on the fact that the human mind has evolved in the way it needed to, can observe reality and get an understanding for what is happening. So, when we figure out that the rain is really part of a cycle of evaporation and percipitation based on cloud build up and whatever else, it kinda eliminates the need for that anthropic spitter 😉

-----god work is lame today...

Originally posted by Alfheim
mmmm well I find it unlikey that if ants exist and humans exist why wouldnt there be creatures more powerful than humans? If you spat on an ant an ant would think its raining. I think there is a strong possiblity that other beings exist but humans are not able to precieve them.

Originally posted by inimalist
insects are much better adapted to this planet, and much more essential to the biosphere, than humans will ever be 😉

...Meh.

Originally posted by inimalist

but the thing is, if you don't know where it's comming from, I could spit on you and you might hazard a guess that it was starting to rain.

Thats true.

Originally posted by inimalist

This is just anthropizing what "power" is, in this case in relation to what was evolutionarily beneficial for the human anscestor's being valued as better than what was evolutionarily beneficial for ant anscestor's, and the final logic being that your ability to choose and execute the action of killing the ant shows you are superior to it. by that logic we could then assume that the most powerful creatures on the planet are virisus and bacteria, and that elephants, due to their ability to trample people, represent something closer to God than ourselves.

Well yyyyyyeah I know I did give the example of squashing an ant but remember I gave an example of perception for example the existance of powerful beings that have a different perception of time and space. Seen Dark City?

Originally posted by inimalist

But, the spit analogy goes even further to proving my point. As humans, we do have something that makes us unique in the animal kingdom. Whatever we want to define it is (totally unimportant here) it allows us to do the thing that we like to think makes us "better" than other animals (although it only makes us better at doing the things that made us better adapted to our environment). If you are spit on, you can look around, check the weather, observe things and compare them to your past experience. All of that is dependent on you having a sensory system that, by tautological principal has to be more complex than that of an ant, and a remarkable memory, which an ant, strangely, probably has (though clearly not like humans). Suppose you see me standing there laughing, you are then able to use your super complex motor system and social communicative systems to discern why it is i am laughing. In other words, you, based on the fact that the human mind has evolved in the way it needed to, can observe reality and get an understanding for what is happening. So, when we figure out that the rain is really part of a cycle of evaporation and percipitation based on cloud build up and whatever else, it kinda eliminates the need for that anthropic spitter 😉

Good point but not entirely true. It could be argued that animals and insects have things that humans dont have for example a salamnder can grow back limbs, a caterpillar can change into a very different organism. It could even be argued that maybe inscets perceieve more than we know but due to our limited intelligence we dont understand them.

Another argument could be that you just think you can make yourself better but in fact the way humans think is very primitive. Powerful beings could see humans like ants. When you consider the amount of stuff humans DONT know the universe becomes alot bigger.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I never questioned that there could be life out there and they would be far more advanced (relative to our technology) than us and they would look down on us as ants but them being the concept of a “god” I doubt.

Well this is the thing, when it comes to "god" I cant really be boethered because it seems you cant come with an accurate defintion but I think the existance of "gods" is likely. I guess we agree on this.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well this is the thing, when it comes to "god" I cant really be boethered because it seems you cant come with an accurate defintion but I think the existance of "gods" is likely. I guess we agree on this.

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
That I can’t come up with a accurate definition of god? 😕

Sorry im feeling a little tired....we agree that there are "gods".

Originally posted by Alfheim
Sorry im feeling a little tired....we agree that there are "gods".

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I think that you misunderstood my post; I never said that I believe there are “gods”, higher life forms but I wouldn’t call that a god, for me a god would have to be some perfect all knowing being.

Well you misunderstood me as well. I see gods as highier lifeforms but not all knowing like God very powerful but not god, sorry I didnt make this clear. In saying that though im pretty sure my perception of these beings are alot more powerful than you perecieve them. To me they are like Q in the Star Trek series, im not sure if your thinking on that level.

P.S. I know you didnt question that there couldnt be lie out there

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well you misunderstood me as well. I see gods as highier lifeforms but not all knowing like God very powerful but not god, sorry I didnt make this clear. In saying that though im pretty sure my perception of these beings are alot more powerful than you perecieve them. To me they are like Q in the Star Trek series, im not sure if your thinking on that level.

P.S. I know you didnt question that there couldnt be lie out there

Normally you confirm that something exists after the evidence has been found. But how do you know the evidence is correct, that what you were taught in school was right and not some slow brainwashing technique to get you plugged in to the hives working mentality?

The fact is you can´t prove anything because as far as we know i might be the creator of everything and when I take my virtual reality kit off everything will cease to exist.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Where would be your cutoff point for being a god? Is there a certain ability or level of knowledge that you would make them a god in your opinion?

Well I guess one cut off point is that they die eventually. My idea of powerful beings is something along the lines of a 1000 years to them is a minute due to the way they perceieve time and are capable of creating universes but eventually they die. *shrug*

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well I guess one cut off point is that they die eventually. My idea of powerful beings is something along the lines of a 1000 years to them is a minute due to the way they perceieve time and are capable of creating universes but eventually they die. *shrug*

Originally posted by Da Pittman
OK, I see and nice answer. As for me I couldn’t see worshiping someone that is not “perfect” such as the concept of the Christian God. I can see following the teachings and learning from the knowledge of someone that has vastly superior knowledge like growing up and learning from your parents.

Well to be fair that is kinda how heathenism is. The gods are like very powerful relatives. Heathens might use the word worship but its not worship in an Abrahamic sense its kinda how you would worship.

P.S. Just so you know im not trying to convert you.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well to be fair that is kinda how heathenism is. The gods are like very powerful relatives. Heathens might use the word worship but its not worship in an Abrahamic sense its kinda how you would worship.

P.S. Just so you know im not trying to convert you.

Originally posted by Alfheim
...Meh.

pffft....

Originally posted by Alfheim
Thats true.

damn right

Originally posted by Alfheim
Well yyyyyyeah I know I did give the example of squashing an ant but remember I gave an example of perception for example the existance of powerful beings that have a different perception of time and space. Seen Dark City?

lol, what I am saying is more along the line of: "There is no universal standard by which 'power' can be measured, and therefore 'powerful' can have no value without a specific premise as to what 'power' is". The whole concept of one thing being more powerful than another is an anthropic principle because we can use our brains and come up with anthropic principles. One being cannot be more powerful than another without defining what power is, and in pretty much all cases, the concept of God is just a more powerful version of what makes humans very well adapted to their environment.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Good point but not entirely true. It could be argued that animals and insects have things that humans dont have for example a salamnder can grow back limbs, a caterpillar can change into a very different organism. It could even be argued that maybe inscets perceieve more than we know but due to our limited intelligence we dont understand them.

Yup, kinda goes along with my point. I am saying there is no way that humans can be more powerful than anything else, so I don't get what you are arguing here...

Originally posted by Alfheim
Another argument could be that you just think you can make yourself better but in fact the way humans think is very primitive. Powerful beings could see humans like ants. When you consider the amount of stuff humans DONT know the universe becomes alot bigger.

The concept of a powerful being looking down on a weaker being is an anthropic concept because the powerful being in this case is just a more powerful version of a human with power defined as the things that humanity would find powerful or familiar.

I believe the idea that you can't disprove the existence of anything unless you have proof... but without proof it can exist or it doesn't the most common argument that Zeus wouldn't exist is that people have climbed what the Greeks called Mount Olympus, but of course people thought God lived in the sky not another dimension until we had planes... so we moved it to outer space... then we went into space, and so on, all will be constantly adapted with the knowledge of the current times.

The point is that without hard, cold evidence nothing can be proven either way... so with such things as "God does exist" or "God doesn't exist" are incorrect and should be reserved for those that are not prepared to argue their points logically using all your sources to the max, of course many don't do this and thus results in the previous stated statements.

An example of such a conundrum is where dinosaur bones came from how they got there and such... of course this seems like an odd example, but there are people think God put them there to test their faith, or that the devil put them there to lead people away from God, while science says that they came from billions of years ago...

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I simply tire of the counter argument [b]"You can't PROVE that God DOESN'T EXIST" as a response to the statement that God's existance cannot be proven.

You can't prove Zeus doesn't exist either.

You can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either.

You can't prove the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist either.

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist either.

You can't prove the floating teacup in outer space doesn't exist either.

All you have to go by is Logic, History, and Science. Please realize the fallacy of the argument "You cannot Prove God doesn't exist".

All of you Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other Theists deny the existance of other myths and possibilities, but will defend your own to the death, even though you know you cannot prove your beleif true.

Your arguments will earn respect when you clarify your beleif as beleif, but once you claim your beleif as truth that is when the Burden of Proof falls upon you.

Understand ? [/B]

Originally posted by Kelly_Bean
I see what you're saying BUT it's hard to prove something DOESN'T exist as opposed to proving it DOES exist.

Proving a Negative is faulty, the objective should be to prove a positive, and if such an act fails, the conclusion is the negative.

All I am saying is that if one adheres to the negative, or if one is in reasonable denial of something fantastic or unbelievable being true, that person does not have to prove anything.

The person who claims the positive, the person who claims that an unlikely and illogical existance is true, is the person who bears the burden of proof for his or her conclusion. Especially in the case where that person tries to intimidate, threaten, or condescend to the person who denies thier conclusion(s).

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Proving a Negative is faulty, the objective should be to prove a positive, and if such an act fails, the conclusion is the negative.

All I am saying is that if one adheres to the negative, or if one is in reasonable denial of something fantastic or unbelievable being true, that person does not have to prove anything.

The person who claims the positive, the person who claims that an unlikely and illogical existance is true, is the person who bears the burden of proof for his or her conclusion. Especially in the case where that person tries to intimidate, threaten, or condescend to the person who denies thier conclusion(s).

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Proving a Negative is faulty, the objective should be to prove a positive, and if such an act fails, the conclusion is the negative.

A lack of evidence does not constitute proof of the negative.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
All I am saying is that if one adheres to the negative, or if one is in reasonable denial of something fantastic or unbelievable being true, that person does not have to prove anything.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The person who claims the positive, the person who claims that an unlikely and illogical existance is true, is the person who bears the burden of proof for his or her conclusion. Especially in the case where that person tries to intimidate, threaten, or condescend to the person who denies thier conclusion(s).

An argument from ignorance is logically fallicious.