Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Let's apply silly-gism!God watches us masturbate.
All things that God does are good.
Watching people masturbate is good!
Sarcasm aside, God is a pervert and perverts have weird senses of what "good" is.
Originally posted by Robtard
If ghost do exist, your grandparents or great grandparents have watched you slapping your meatshaft.
Time to put on a show 馃拑
Originally posted by Moscow
Indeed, that's very true. Yet, I find it a fascinating question to ponder anyway, seeing as how I hold out the fact that the ideas found in Christianity might be true-- since I cannot prove that they are.
That is were we are different. I have disproved Christianity to my satisfaction, and you are trying to prove it.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is were we are different. I have disproved Christianity to my satisfaction, and you are trying to prove it.
No. I'm not trying to prove it, actually. The whole "Jesus Christ is the Lord and son of God" thing is not to my liking. However, I am open to the possibility that it is the truth, just as I am open to the possibility that other religions on this earth are the truth. Just as the idea that no God, multiple Gods, or one God is the truth.
I don't buy Christianity. If that is the end result, God and Jesus will know exactly where my stance is, and they will know that I will not accept changing it.
You and I more alike than anything else. I, however, have not studied Buddhism very much, although I am quite curious about it.
Originally posted by Moscow
No. I'm not trying to prove it, actually. The whole "Jesus Christ is the Lord and son of God" thing is not to my liking. However, I am open to the possibility that it is the truth, just as I am open to the possibility that other religions on this earth are the truth. Just as the idea that no God, multiple Gods, or one God is the truth.I don't buy Christianity. If that is the end result, God and Jesus will know exactly where my stance is, and they will know that I will not accept changing it.
You and I more alike than anything else. I, however, have not studied Buddhism very much, although I am quite curious about it.
However, the fact that you are open to them (Christianity) possibly being true means that you have not proved them to be false. Unless you are actively trying to disprove something, then, in worst case, you are passively trying to prove something.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, the fact that you are open to them (Christianity) possibly being true means that you have not proved them to be false. Unless you are actively trying to disprove something, then, in worst case, you are passively trying to prove something.
Whether passively or actively, I cannot in anyway prove or disprove them. Religion is a belief system not a fact system. There is no way of me knowing if any of it is true or false. I thought originally that after I die on this earth I would find an answer. Now, however, I thinking that that might not be true either
Originally posted by Moscow
Whether passively or actively, I cannot in anyway prove or disprove them. Religion is a belief system not a fact system. There is no way of me knowing if any of it is true or false. I thought originally that after I die on this earth I would find an answer. Now, however, I thinking that that might not be true either
Yes, but that is why I originally said, "disproved Christianity to my satisfaction". The truth is that you cannot prove anything, but only disprove something, and you have to classify that.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but that is why I originally said, "disproved Christianity to my satisfaction". The truth is that you cannot prove anything, but only disprove something, and you have to classify that.
Okay... but how can you disprove a belief? You can say "I don't believe it". You cannot say "I know it to be untrue"
Originally posted by Moscow
Okay... but how can you disprove a belief? You can say "I don't believe it". You cannot say "I know it to be untrue"
See Galileo Galilei
There was a time when a belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe was prevalent. Galileo used a new invention to prove that the sun was at the center, and the Earth went around it. Short of being Galileo with a telescope, you can do the same thing personally. Like for example, you can take classes in geology and look at the information that shows that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, but more like 4.5 billion. Therefore, you can come to a point were you say that one thing is more likely then another.
I can see where you going from that. Christianity doesn't necessarily have a set date in time. Most people I know of that call themselves Christians do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. Geology and anthropology can solve that little conundrum.
Galileo was the s**t to be sure. When it comes to Gods though, it's not quite that easy to prove or disprove as is figuring out the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Originally posted by Moscow
I can see where you going from that. Christianity doesn't necessarily have a set date in time. Most people I know of that call themselves Christians do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. Geology and anthropology can solve that little conundrum.Galileo was the s**t to be sure. When it comes to Gods though, it's not quite that easy to prove or disprove as is figuring out the Earth revolves around the Sun.
It is more difficult, but not impossible. You have to first pick a god. Then, look at what that god does. List it all out, and use your intelligent logical mind. Ask yourself why. It took me a long time to figure that one out, but the answer was simple; power. Not the god like power, but the power that humans use. I found that god doesn鈥檛 do anything, but humans do.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is more difficult, but not impossible. You have to first pick a god. Then, look at what that god does. List it all out, and use your intelligent logical mind. Ask yourself why. It took me a long time to figure that one out, but the answer was simple; power. Not the god like power, but the power that humans use. I found that god doesn鈥檛 do anything, but humans do.
That's as logical as humans can get, which can be taken illogically if you take it piece by piece. When one discusses the afterlife and what it entails, no one can be sure of what awaits them. You can ask yourself "why" or "how" or "what" as much as you want, but it will give you no definitive answer.
Originally posted by Moscow
That's as logical as humans can get, which can be taken illogically if you take it piece by piece. When one discusses the afterlife and what it entails, no one can be sure of what awaits them. You can ask yourself "why" or "how" or "what" as much as you want, but it will give you no definitive answer.
You have to except one thing as fact: there is no such thing as supernatural. However, there is quantum mechanics to keep in mind.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have to except one thing as fact: there is no such thing as supernatural.
And actually, let's see if we can derive this conclusion
We only have ways of perceiving the natural world. Anything we perceive must be natural. The supernatural must then never leave any trace which is only possible if such entities are unable to interact with our world in any manner.
If follows then that proof of the supernatural is evidence that the supernatural is not supernatural. This makes supernatural phenomenon inherently paradoxical and thus non-existent.
However this is only evidence that the word is useless. It doesn't rule out entities traditionally considered supernatural, it merely limits them to the laws of physics. From that we can eliminate anything that would necessarily violate the laws of nature.
A dedicated believer might claim that these creatures can violate even logic. This claim can be dismissed on it's own merits, if logic does not hold then the argument that "logic doesn't work" cannot usefully be constructed.
This lets us dismiss certain things. Omniscience must be impossible because it requires either knowledge of things that the laws of physics tell us cannot be known or requires FTL transmittance of information which violates both physics and logic.
So we've demonstrated that if there is evidence for God he must be a natural entity. Because God must be a natural entity he must be subject to both logic and physical laws. Being subject to those laws means God cannot be omniscient.
Thus God cannot be spying on you while you masturbate!
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And actually, let's see if we can derive this conclusionWe only have ways of perceiving the natural world. Anything we perceive must be natural. The supernatural must then never leave any trace which is only possible if such entities are unable to interact with our world in any manner.
If follows then that proof of the supernatural is evidence that the supernatural is not supernatural. This makes supernatural phenomenon inherently paradoxical and thus non-existent.
However this is only evidence that the word is useless. It doesn't rule out entities traditionally considered supernatural, it merely limits them to the laws of physics. From that we can eliminate anything that would necessarily violate the laws of nature.
A dedicated believer might claim that these creatures can violate even logic. This claim can be dismissed on it's own merits, if logic does not hold then the argument that "logic doesn't work" cannot usefully be constructed.
This lets us dismiss certain things. Omniscience must be impossible because it requires either knowledge of things that the laws of physics tell us cannot be known or requires FTL transmittance of information which violates both physics and logic.
So we've demonstrated that if there is evidence for God he must be a natural entity. Because God must be a natural entity he must be subject to both logic and physical laws. Being subject to those laws means God cannot be omniscient.
Thus God cannot be spying on you while you masturbate!
And that is also why I am not an atheist. 馃槃