The knowings and Unknowings of our Existence

[Acriku]

Warskum, let's talk about it in here, same for you EWS. This should be interesting.

First off, it is prudent to note that anybody positively asserting anything (e.g. Unicorns exist [why are atheists fascinated by unicorns? It's like a strange fetish]) requires evidence to support that assertion for any consideration to begin. Otherwise, I could say unicorns exist, and make you prove they don't. That'd be a little hard, wouldn't you say so? So, if I were to say unicorns exist, it is my responsibility to bring forth evidence to support their existence. If I can't do so, then my assertion becomes meaningless.

Second, it is possible to prove a negative. If you have a closed environment, you very well can prove that a unicorn doesn't exist in this environment. However, when we're talking in terms of the universe, it comes to the point of impossibility to prove a negative. Another method, that can be used anywhere, is to arrive at a logical contradiction for the said subject to exist in this universe with certain attributes. For example, I know for a fact that there does not exist in any part of the universe a squared circle. A circle has no corners, a square does, and if we were to imagine an object to take on the shape of both a square and a circle, it'd be impossible logically.

Third, this website describes many fallacies that we each would need to become familiar with to get a good discussion going.

Fourth, have fun!

[DukeLeto]

Third, this website describes many fallacies that we each would need to become familiar with to get a good discussion going.

Whoa, I just had to use that same site for a school project.  Freaky... :O

Uh, anyways...

[TMA_1]

lol good grief acriku, you are creating your own rules on logic and how to prove things. Athiesm is silly.

Agnosticism is reasonable, an idea that we can never know an existance that is beyond us. That is true because in an academic sense because you are saying you cannot prove something that can or cannot be proved scientifically. To say no or yes to it in any way is ignorant.

I just dont see where you get this stuff acriku, it seems just as dogmatic as my beliefs in a God.

[Acriku]

lol good grief acriku, you are creating your own rules on logic and how to prove things. Athiesm is silly.

Interesting how you not only spell atheism incorrectly, but you also make an ignorant remark - that atheism is silly. Why TMA, I never would have thought this of you... Scratch that.

Agnosticism is reasonable, an idea that we can never know an existance that is beyond us. That is true because in an academic sense because you are saying you cannot prove something that can or cannot be proved scientifically. To say no or yes to it in any way is ignorant.

Agnosticism is not a choice between theism and atheism. You've been saying this for the past few threads, and it ends now. Agnosticism is concerned only with knowledge, not belief. Why do you think I call myself an agnostic atheist? Am I being contradictory? Of course not. You're misusing the word, and now you should understand why.

I just dont see where you get this stuff acriku, it seems just as dogmatic as my beliefs in a God.

I don't care whether or not you think it came out of my ass, but keep out the personal attacks/attempts to belittle.

[TMA_1]

lol, sorry I always mess up the i's and e's. You know that by now.

agnostic athiest? that doesnt eixst. Of course you argued on this topic before with your own twisted view of athiesm that isnt in any dictionary I have ever seen. In fact we argued about this and told me that "the dictionaries are wrong".lol

If you are going to create your own standards, and then make double standards. I have seen you say with your knowledge ind ebating and in logic say oyu cant prove a negative, now you are saying you can. YOu constantly reinvent yourselfa nd your opinions, it is a tad bit silly is all I am saying.

And of course agnosticism isnt a choice between theism and atheism. It is a state of mind where you believe you dont have enough information to say if there is or there isnt a God/gods/goddess'/forces/blah.

Athiesm is when you reject the idea of a deity or of any sort, where you choose not to believe in one. This is where you get into your own created views on what athiesm is, and where you come up with the term agnostic athiest. There is no such thing. YOu want to argue with me? then yo uwould be involving yourself in semantics, whcih you have been doing a lot lately.

not trying to attack you man, I just dont see any logic in what you are saying. it just baffles me. and talking to others about your opinions on what athiesm is, they totally disagree with you. just doesnt make any sense.

[Navaros]

Akriku:

[filecore]

tell me:

[Warskum]

And of course agnosticism isnt a choice between theism and atheism. It is a state of mind where you believe you dont have enough information to say if there is or there isnt a God/gods/goddess'/forces/blah.

Athiesm is when you reject the idea of a deity or of any sort, where you choose not to believe in one. This is where you get into your own created views on what athiesm is, and where you come up with the term agnostic athiest. There is no such thing. YOu want to argue with me? then yo uwould be involving yourself in semantics, whcih you have been doing a lot lately.

This is treu, there is no such thing as agnostic atheist, we recently learned something on school bout this, and this is what the book says bout agnostics:

"A person who doesnt have enough information to believe in god, an agnostic does not think that theism is wrong."

So this means that an agnostic thinks that the existance of a God is

[GUNWOUNDS]

You can only go so far back before the logical explanation for the existence of something HAS to be that there never was a begining or you will end up in a never ending loop.

that should answer your question warskum about where the creator himself came from...

Either the universe was always here.... or either it was created supernaturally by a being with no begining.

/nuff said

[hide]*warning* anything discussed past this point will have a high probability of containing subjective semantics debating.[/hide]

.

[EWS]

Give me proof of a "divine" creator and I will believe.  If God were to exist, why does he allow evil things to exist in this world?  God is surely purely good and therefore would only ever allow good things to happen?  Kinda strange really how the stories of the bible almost relate exactly to alot of Plato's teaching and theories (the Theory of Forms anyone).  Further, who was the creator?  Is it that only one religion is right, and the rest are fonies?  Or do they all exist in harmony, but then this cannot be right as each religion has their own God who created the world.

Also, Dinosaurs existed.  That is a scientific fact.  So if God created Man, where do they fit in?  If there was man before the dinosaurs surely there would have been some evidence to clarify this?

[Warskum]

Give me proof of a "divine" creator and I will believe.

[EWS]

A question: Do you love your parents?(i ll respond to ur answer later.)

Of course I love my parents.  What is the relivence in that question?

[filecore]

Interesting to note that in these discussions we focus on Christianity where other religions give better answers - I would think that of all religions, Buddhism is the one closest to the ideal and if I were forced to choose, it's the belief system that I would be most happy with (we learned a lot about this because when I was in school, we were about fifteen miles from the largest Buddhist monastery outside of Tibet, regular field trips were fun :)).

Give me proof of a "divine" creator and I will believe.

Regarding the question of an ultimate creator, this was one of the questions regarding which the Buddha remained silent. The Buddha realised that any answer would create much controversy and argument, and so instead said, "Without cognisable beginning is this samsara (the cycle of existence). The earliest point of beings who, obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, wander and fare on, is not to be perceived."

Maybe we should consider that Christianity might not have all the answers - if people are flawed (due to original sin or whatever) then might not all religions hold some elements of a "greater truth", and the reason that they have not been brought together are not to do with the failure of God, but with the arrogance of mankind?

EDIT: by this, I know that most discussions here are focused on Christianity and getting into a pan-religious discussion would be too broad and most of us (myself included) don't know enough about enough of the religions to have a real debate, but I just wanted to let you know that some of these questions may have already been answered elsewhere than in Christianity.

[Warskum]

Of course I love my parents.

[EWS]

How can you have something always existing?

[Warskum]

How can you have something always existing?

[EWS]

You cannot know that we are stupid.  It is physically impossible.  I guess that from the way I have been brough up decrees that I don't believe in any god.  I love mathematics and mathematical proof will defeat anything.

There will be a time when we know or don't know if God exists, that time will be our death.  But still the question remains, what happens to all those who don't belive in a Christain God?  Do they all go to their own heaven.

Finally, assume for a minute that a God exists.  How do you know his will?

[Warskum]

You cannot know that we are stupid.

[EWS]

Just to let you know, its proove.

I posted it a few posts above

How can you have something always existing?

[Warskum]

Just to let you know, its proove.

I posted it a few posts above

But would the Pope (if you are catholic) also be Gods will?

[EWS]

So do you live your life by the bible?  Would you follow everything, even that which contradicts other stuff?  How about vengence?

God says that vengence is only his.  Does this sound like a universal good being?  Further, what if God wrote in the bible that you must murder every person who is not of the same colour?  Would you do it?

[Warskum]

So do you live your life by the bible?

[EWS]

I am saying if it was gods will would you do it?

[Warskum]

I am saying if it was gods will would you do it?

Yes i would, becuz if he says something like that then that means he has a good reason, but the fact is he doesnt/wont say something like that so this is a wrong question.

[EWS]

So the other question must then be, why is it that he chose not to make that his will?  Could it be then that he made it his will because it is bad.  If this was so, then it would indicate a higher power and so God would be useless.  What do you say to that eh?