Split from Welcome FAQ thread - Is there a God? Discuss

[sasguru]

The faults of organised religion cannot be used to disprove the presence of 'A God'.

That is the question really is, is it not?

Fallacious reasoning. And a common mistake.

As there has been no evidence of supernatural involvement in human life, it is incumbent on those who claim there is a God to prove it, not for atheists to disprove the existence of a human-created artefact. Ockham's razor applies.

[sasguru]

Well irrespective of what the question might have been, doubtless d000fus will be along shortly to illuminate the debate again.

Do you not tire of content-free posts?
You remind me of the chatter round the water cooler when secretaries gather. There are words being exchanged but the net result at the end is as if nothing had been said.

[minestrone]

Fallacious reasoning. And a common mistake.

As there has been no evidence of supernatural involvement in human life, it is incumbent on those who claim there is a God to prove it, not for atheists to disprove the existence of a human-created artefact. Ockham's razor applies.

As I said in my first post if you want to believe in God then that is a personal choice.

Personally I think that if there are no religions we will move along another step the sanitisation of the human race.

Communism wanted everyone to be a small cog in big machine, the Catholic Church had a big hand in starting the process that killed it off. Sometimes we should remember the good that it can do before castigating what others believe in.

[shaunbhoy]

Do you not tire of content-free posts?

Haven't tired of YOU have I?

[NotAllThere]

Fallacious reasoning. And a common mistake.

As there has been no evidence of supernatural involvement in human life, it is incumbent on those who claim there is a God to prove it, not for atheists to disprove the existence of a human-created artefact. Ockham's razor applies.

Hmm. On what grounds is it incumbent on those who claim there is a God to prove it? Just because the athiests say it is, or is there a more profound reason? Religionists would claim there is plenty of evidence of supernatural involvement in human life. And athiests would say - nah, it was just coinicidence.

If you're religious, you've chosen one set of axioms. If you're an atheist, you've chosen another set. ( On this basis, agnostics have failed to choose any set of axioms - though they'd argue, quite cogently, that they're under no obligation to make a choice ).

Proof, or lack of, doesn't come into it.

Fact is, the universe is not ordered, all patterns (including scientific ones) are imposed on it by humans. It fundementally isn't understandable.

[Ruprect]

The chief Rabbi in his response to Hawkins said "...Lord Rees of Ludlow, President of the Royal Society. He too, as he explains in his book Just Six Numbers, was puzzled by the precision of the six mathematical constants that define the shape of the Universe. So unlikely is it that the Universe just happened by chance to fit those parameters that he, too, was forced to suggest the parallel universes hypothesis. If you hold an infinity of lottery tickets, one of them is going to win. "

The trouble with this is, you could hold an infinite number of odd numbered lottery tickets. If the winner is an even number, you still lose.

The unlikeliness of the universe we live in is a fascinating puzzle. Evidence for God? Only to those who've chosen to believe.

I sense you're struggling with the concept of infinity.

[Ruprect]

Hmm. On what grounds is it incumbent on those who claim there is a God to prove it? Just because the athiests say it is, or is there a more profound reason? Religionists would claim there is plenty of evidence of supernatural involvement in human life. And athiests would say - nah, it was just coinicidence.

If you're religious, you've chosen one set of axioms. If you're an atheist, you've chosen another set. ( On this basis, agnostics have failed to choose any set of axioms - though they'd argue, quite cogently, that they're under no obligation to make a choice ).

Proof, or lack of, doesn't come into it.

Fact is, the universe is not ordered, all patterns (including scientific ones) are imposed on it by humans. It fundementally isn't understandable.

And science.

[MarillionFan]

I sense you're struggling with the concept of infinity.

Ruprect has it spot on. Everything is possible. In another universe in another reality NAT is actually Suityou's bitch.

[minestrone]

Fallacious reasoning. And a common mistake.

As there has been no evidence of supernatural involvement in human life, it is incumbent on those who claim there is a God to prove it, not for atheists to disprove the existence of a human-created artefact. Ockham's razor applies.

I had a think about this on the train and I suppose this is some thing that Dawkins promotes, that the churches/religions should prove what they say is true.

A stated, my take on it is that religion is a personal belief and that the collective Church/Religion is just a collection of individuals with like minded personal beliefs, if that was not the case then the religion would die in a lifetime.

I think for someone to be asked, or demanded, as Dawkins does, to prove and explain their personal belief is quite arrogant and with that I think that demanding that a group of people with equally similar views to have to offer an explanation is equally as arrogant.

I owe no explanation to Dawkins or his ilk and neither does any church or group that I follow.

I see Dawkins as promoter of free market communism, ideological normalisation but with rich and poor, we are quickly moving towards a mono world culture, I think defending a person's right to choice of faith is one thing that will stop this.

[NotAllThere]

I sense you're struggling with the concept of infinity.

Not really. I'm quite familiar with, and understand Cantor and Gödel's work.

The naïve concept of infinity is that given an infinite number of universes, anything that can happen, must happen. Mathematically, this isn't the case.