Sharia law

[cantaloup63]

Why do you think it/god even came here bin the first place? Perhaps he/it has more important things to do?

I'm sort of using the existence of the multitude of religions that suggest a "divine" insight or experience to "prove" their validity above other religions in order to demonstrate that they must all be in error.

There seems to be a common belief that if he exists we would somehow be important to him/her/it?
Perhaps we have very little if any significance in any kind of grand scheme of things, of there is one, or even if there isnt.

Agreed, in which case all these religions are indeed nonsense and base their ethics and moralities on nothing concrete.

 

[thatbloke]

Just because it is possible that none of our religions are accurate it does not mean there isnt a God.

 

[cantaloup63]

Just because it is possible that none of our religions are accurate it does not mean there isnt a God.

On that point I agree totally.

 

[spacecat]

wake up and smell reality

man has always seemed to find a need to create a diety to explain what cannot be explained, to try and to provide some sort of moral compass/means of social control(doesnt really work) and as a way of coping with death.

Its all very touching but ultimately futile and watching various religeons twisting themselves inside out trying to find ways to to cope with scientific discovery and theory is actually really quite a sad reflection of desperate institutions trying to hang on to power,influence and lots of MONEY!

@Thatbloke it is mans nature to question surely any belief worth having should be able to stand up to scrutiny, why should religeon be exempted?

The joke is religeous god bothering types have NO qualms about shoving their fantasies and fiction down everyones throats and we all know what the EXTREMISTS of religeon are capable of doing.

Religeons love to try to make science explain EVERYTHING but yet cannot provide their own BIGGEST PROOF themselves.

 

[cantaloup63]

spacecat, you seem to be confusing the issue of the possibility of the existence of a god with the need of mankind to have some kind of guiding light. The conclusion that I have is that I agree with you in that all religions are nearly certainly nonsensical in their claims of some divine intervention (and thus superiority over other religions), but on the other hand it is not logically possible to rule out the existence of a god in exactly the same way that one cannot logically rule it in

 

[spacecat]

but on the other hand it is not logically possible to rule out the existence of a god in exactly the same way that one cannot logically rule it in

In the same way that one can not logically rule out the existence of

The Tooth Fairy, Father Xmas, Tinkerbell , the Gruffalo to name a few.

anyone can make up their own religeon and claim the same childish argument ...scientology comes to mind

if your whole belief is based on sucha flimsy concept then GOD HELP YOU!

 

[cantaloup63]

Ironically you are entirely correct about the logic of not being able to rule in or out other manifestations that tickle your fancy. These only become harmful if you use them as a guiding moral argument and suggest that they have spoken to you and thus validated your outlook.

My point is that there may or may not be a god, but in either case we know nothing about it and most certainly should not put "words in his mouth".

 

[spacecat]

NO there is ISNT a god and the fact that you can apply the same daft logic to anything that takes your fancy undermines the whole argument to point of
total nonsense that it is.

by definitiion almost anything cant be disproved doesnt make it a possibility that it might exist

 

[cantaloup63]

by definitiion almost anything cant be disproved doesnt make it a possibility that it might exist

I'm afraid your logic is in complete error. You may wish to reflect on Schrodinger's cat paradox

You state quite categorically that there isn't a god, and by use of capitals seem to be becoming quite emotive in your point. It is this tendency towards a fanatical belief/stance that contradicts your disdain for those who wish to hold an alternative view.

 

[spacecat]

It's not fanaticism I use capitals in all my posts to emphasise points .

Bs philosophy aside if your best argument is that your belief CAN'T be disproved
along with pixies, faires and elves

Then your struggling to the point of incredulity.....

 

[Nige F]

["][/]. You may wish to reflect on Schrodinger's cat paradox

.

I think we have a new paradox - Spacecat`s god paradox

 

[cantaloup63]

It's not fanaticism I use capitals in all my posts to emphasise points .

Thanks for the clarification of your typography

Bs philosophy aside if your best argument is that your belief CAN'T be disproved
along with pixies, faires and elves

The whole question of the possible existence of a god is a philosophical one, so you can't brush it aside I'm afraid

Then your struggling to the point of incredulity.....

I'm not struggling at all As with schrodinger's cat, since you cannot know for a fact the actualilty, then the paradox is that god (like fairies, elves and goblins) both exists and doesn't exist.

What we can agree on though is that it it absolutely essential in a "belief based religion" is that god must never have manifested himself if it is to remain a belief and not a knowledge. Therefore it follows that all religions that claim to have had such a direct evidence based pretext has to be, by definition, false and entirely manmade.

 

[cantaloup63]

["][/]. You may wish to reflect on Schrodinger's cat paradox

.

I think we have a new paradox - Spacecat`s god paradox

Missed that one Sorry spacecat - the pun was not intended at the time

 

[spacecat]

Like I said we can get caught up in philosophical semantics that nothing can be wholly proven or disproved, it's so broad and intangible that it is essentially pointless

basing a belief/faith on that philosophy is very weak and is an argument most leave behind in the school play ground
It still leaves the over whelming probability that the existence of a god or pixies is false

 

[cajar]

I'm not struggling at all As with schrodinger's cat, since you cannot know for a fact the actualilty, then the paradox is that god (like fairies, elves and goblins) both exists and doesn't exist.

That's not my understanding of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. As far as I'm aware, it requires the reader to think about when something with equal probablity (the gas kills the cat or doesnt) has had enough time to happen then in some cases it has either happened or hasn't - whilst scientists were content to notate the result as 50% happened and 50% not happened.

How you're attempting to ascribe this to a God or not argument is puzzling, as no-one is actually suggesting there is 50% of a god as a compromise to the argument.

Furthermore, your suggestion also asserts equal probability to the existance of a god versus no god. This is the fundamental argument for agnostisicm. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support a god or gods, tooth fairies, goblins, monsters under the bed etc, therefore I am content to not believe in these things.

If I am buying a bed I don't consider the need to deter monsters from dwelling under it in the design and I apply the same common sense to the existance of a god / gods and how I spend my sundays.