Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because... (4)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:34:35 GMT
Notre Shuggie says:

Mr Paul Davidson says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Show post anyway.]

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:36:51 GMT
Spin says:

Bellatori'; Light the drink so that it glows with a blue flame and serve it to me upon some very robust breasts, and you have my eternal devotion. =)

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:38:17 GMT
Spin says:

Bellatori: I disagree. The engineer can only produce what is demanded of the scientist. If science seeks the Higgs boson, then a machine is built to find any aspect relating to the hypotheses of the Higgs. No more, no less.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:40:00 GMT
Norm Deplume says:

Paul Davidson wrote:

". The intelligible universe is made up of things that are caused. Unless you have an Intelligent Uncaused Cause, nothing could or would exist. I don't suppose you have come across any uncaused physical things or events in the universe, have you Peter?"

Hi Paul,

I can't speak for Peter, but I have never come across a god either. So that must mean there are none. If there are one or more gods, then not having witnessed any uncaused events could not lead to a presumption that they have not happened by the same token.

Come to think of it, if I had come across an uncaused physical thing or event, I do not see how I could recognise it as such. Do you know of any criterion that might work?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:40:20 GMT
Spin says:
Mr Paul; Spin says, give it a rest, please...=) There are laws against stalkers, you know...=)

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:41:20 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Spin says:- "Would you say that IVF treatment constitutes "successful completion"? "

If it works - yes.
More often it leads to heartache and disappointment, Spin - as I can personally attest.

Spin says:- "would you deny a homosexual couple would make good adoptive parents? "

That's a thorny subject Spin, well off the beaten track of this thread.
There's little yet to say what kind of parents they would turn out to be - some good and some bad would be my estimation of the outcome.
I suspect it will all depend on the *reason* behind the adoption in the first place.
A 'trophy' child I think, is surely in for a very hard life indeed and will have a very skewed view of the world it occupies.
On a personal note, and this is purely personal, I can't see the child in question getting a 'balanced' experience of life within such a home.
On the other hand as most parents are aware, the little b*st*rds don't take a blind bit of notice anyway, and will eventually end up doing their own thing.
Just the same as in heterosexual relationships really.
Cheers
Peter

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:41:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2013 15:43:06 GMT
Spin says:

It is not a God that theists must praise, but themselves. It is not God that fights the evils of this world, but those with a concern, be it at times faulty and misled,, for humanity. I have more faith and trust in humanity than I do in deity. It is mankind that is of importance, not religion or science.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:43:52 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"If you want to test another hypothesis you will have to build another machine designed to discern the reality you propose. "

And if the reality you propose is wrong then your detector won't detect anything.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:45:07 GMT
Andrew says:

if the universe has dimensions, which science says it does, what is beyond the outer edge? the best science can say at the moment is "nothing", or more recently, via quantum physics, "everything". given how abstract both of these are, I sympathyze with religions that say "something". something seems as logical as nothing and everything.

also, if time started at the Big Bang, what was before time? again, science offers nothing/everything. again, who's to judge religious people that say "something".

if all energy was created in the Big Bang, and it will one day decay to nothing, then that is the state it was in before the Big Bang. if something can come from nothing, why can't it keep coming from nothing? ie why can't it go on for ever, and who can say it hasn't been going on for cycles before the Big Bang?

what is the harm of putting a name (god) and face to this 'something'? if people feel safer, less confused, or more purposeful with a "father", who are we to say that that's wrong? considering this 'god' instructs those that perceive 'Him' to be good, love thy neighbour, help your fellow man, and do good to those that hate you, why not support them in thier beliefs? why disprove 'god', if god is good?

the scripture says thou shalt not kill, steal, lie, be dishonourable, so why not salute that and if you must judge, should you not judge those that claim to be religious but act evil, rather that judge the entire system of religion?

God is love according to the bible, god is everything according to hindus, and Buddhists don't even use the word god, and instead focus thier religion towards compassion, love and unity. so who can truly say religion is bad?

religion is good, just poorly followed by some people or poorly practised. what comparative system have atheists come up with? often religion keeps social entities civilised and sometimes atheists can be little more that wild animals, selfish and cruel to the extreme. if it weren't for religion, in some enthnic groups and social circles there would be no morality whatsoever. this is often the case amongst some families or circles.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:46:35 GMT
Spin says:
Mr P: So "successful completion", for you, involves no more than the meeting of sperm and egg. How then, do you derive a moral viewpoint concerning homosexuality from the basis of scientific reality? Secondly, your opinion of what constutes "legimate" adoption lends itself to trhe belief that even a heterosexual couple may have hidden sexual desires in wanting to adopt..

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:48:56 GMT
Spin says:
G: Indeed. But my point is that no machine can discern reality; it can only affirm or deny a prior hypothesis which, in all likelihood is both limited and biased.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:50:54 GMT
Bellatori says:
Why is tedious P copying other peoples posts? Has he really got nothing better to do?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:51:29 GMT
Hi Dan

Was your question meant to be some sort of answer to mine?

My question to you was:
You have already said that you believe you have free will.
Are you saying, then, that you are not a 'materialist' (ie one who believes that only matter exists)?

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:54:48 GMT
Spin says:
Belatori: I do not mind..I have an admirer who takes time to copy my posts and present them to others. At least someone recognises my genius..=)

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 15:55:04 GMT
Hi Peter

When are you going to give us all your coherent view or vision of reality.

I hope you are going to tell us more than 'Accidentsorchancedidit.'

Best wishes

Paul

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 15:57:14 GMT
Bellatori says:

Usually scientists say 'nothing' as a short hand. Generally they talk about nospace and notime. Science even has a hypothesis on how this nospace/notime might behave and why this universe came into being. I rehearsed a lot of this in the previous thread so I am not repeating myself.

The jury is out on the Big Bang versus the Big Crunch but the latter is more 'sophisticated' and requires more assumptions hence Occam's Razor would suggest the Big Bang is more probable.

As for the rest of your post, I would hold that it is no real harm but then, if it is not true, is deceiving people acceptable.?

"if it weren't for religion, in some enthnic groups and social circles there would be no morality whatsoever. this is often the case amongst some families or circles."
I wrote a post about this to which I have had no response so far. The question that arises is not "Does God exist?" but"When and why did belief in God arise?)

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 16:00:23 GMT
Spin says:

"The jury is out"; the usual response when science is questioned about the issues it takes for granted..

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 16:02:52 GMT
G. Heron says:
Spin

"But my point is that no machine can discern reality;"

I can't see how a machine can discern anything other than reality

"

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 16:05:25 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
Spin says:- "So "successful completion", for you, involves no more than the meeting of sperm and egg. "

No; I said "....... and leads to term".
Where "term" means the birth of.

Spin asks:-"How then, do you derive a moral viewpoint concerning homosexuality from the basis of scientific reality?"

As a scientist I look upon it like this :- "If it *is* a 'natural' occurrence it *will* happen. If it *isn't* then it *wont*.
Seeing as the gender challenged *do* happen then it *must* be perfectly *natural* for it to happen.
They may well be seated close to the ends of the bench called humanity, while we're shuggled up nicely in the middle but, nevertheless, they're still 'people'.
It's a broad bench we all sit on - there's room for all surely.

Spin says:-"even a heterosexual couple may have hidden sexual desires in wanting to adopt.."

This sounds a bit 'dark' Spin but, speaking from people I have known, adoption is only second best to actually being able to 'do it yourself'.
Desperation is usually the sentiment that pushes hetero's toward adoption.

Cheers
Peter

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 16:06:41 GMT
Spin says:
G; if you want to see how a machine can discern and present anything other than reality, watch TV..

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 16:11:01 GMT
Mr. P. Smith says:
I answered you Paul, on this very question in the last three threads.
You're re-hashing old stuff.
Why don't you try the "Cosmic argument for God" again as counter argument.
We could do with a good laugh in this time of recession.

Cheers
Peter.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2013 16:14:20 GMT
Spin says:
Mr P: "leads to term.." iS that a scientific or theological statement? And I think adoptive parents might strongly disagree with your assessment that they are "desperate". In fact a comment like that is quite heartless. Coupoles with and without thier own family choose to adopt because they want to offer the love and security every child deserves.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 16:55:45 GMT
C.A. Small says:

Andrew-"religion is good". Wrong. Very wrong.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 16:57:14 GMT
Andrew says:

so you've explored it fully before condemning the entire thing? what about my statement of good idea/ but, for some people, poor execution? what about my statement re Buddhism? not all religion is based on the simplistic theology you may have encountered, so how can you condemn it all equally? what about my comment about feral families that have no morality? you aren't qualified to be judge and jury until you've at least answered these points. until then, you are the one that's 'wrong, very wrong'.

Posted on 11 Jan 2013 16:59:16 GMT
C. A. Small says:

Andrew- why would beliving in something for which there is no evidence be a good idea?

The irony of the next bit "but, for some people, poor execution?", given the history of torture and murder by religious authorities is too funny.

Your post hangs on the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, as do most posts praising religion.

You can tie yourself in intellectual knots trying to prove god exists, but the simple tests are the best ones- show me!

I have never seen a god, evidence for a god, or anything else apart from wishful thinking , delusion, brain-washing, or coercion.

There is no more evidence for a god than there is for unicorns, except unicorns are a damn sight more likely.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Time to ignore the religion forums trolls.? 149 33 minutes ago
Are atheists in Europe still living a Christian lifestyle? 127 53 minutes ago
The Power of Prayer. 1850 1 hour ago
Remain or Leave? 405 2 hours ago
2nd referendum, for those that don't believe in democracy. 18 8 hours ago
The Bible is not the "Word of God" 1536 8 hours ago
If an all knowledgeable God created life, why is there cancer? 1069 11 hours ago
guilty until proven innocent. 486 14 hours ago
Is God to Blame for Our Suffering? 268 14 hours ago
What homophobes are afraid of: 1744 17 hours ago
Why are the BBC so slow to report incidents such as the Cologne new years eve's sex attacks, by immigrants or the Muslim paedophile rings in Rotherham and Rochdale. Is it because THAT IS THE CULTURE AT THE BBC. 18 18 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  64
Total posts:  3185
Initial post:  10 Jan 2013
Latest post:  27 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions