BREAKING NEWS: Scientists Find Evidence That Proves God Exists!?!!?!!!!

[13th_account]

But theism does not endeavour to discover and find answers.

Neither does atheism then. Both extremes are holding a belief.

I just disapprove of your way of combating religion by making unsubstantiated claims yourself. Each religion has an abundance of holes to chip away at, but disproving gods is impossible.

[Mangled*]

Neither does atheism then. Both extremes are holding a belief.

I just disapprove of your way of combating religion by making unsubstantiated claims yourself. Each religion has an abundance of holes to chip away at, but disproving gods is impossible.

I never mentioned atheism. Atheism is not holding a belief, it's holding a disbelief.

What unsubstanciated claims? WAREWOLVES!?!?!

This is sheer logic. God lives in that catagory of mythical beings for which there are no evidence. Vampires, warewolves, ghosts, the tooth fairy, they're all in there. Why is God exempt from the same standards of reason? Also, which God(s)? I'm pretty sure nobody at this point believes in the Roman Gods or the Ancient Nordic Gods or the Ancient Egyptian Gods. They're all myth. Allah, Jehovah and Waweh, they're all in there too.

Regardless of what a few billion people think.

What is there to disprove?
Proof = 0

[13th_account]

I never mentioned atheism. [...]

What unsubstanciated claims? WAREWOLVES!?!?!

Neither are provable
Nor disprovable

It is the nature of non-existent things.

No proof to either counter or support theism, therefore gods are non-existent? Sounds like atheism to me.

Atheism is not holding a belief, it's holding a disbelief.

I guess we have different definitions of atheism then. I always thought of it as the belief in the non-existence of gods. Since gods can't be disproved using the scientific method, it requires a belief to hold that claim.

[Mangled*]

No proof to either counter or support theism, therefore gods are non-existent? Sounds like atheism to me.

Do you believe in warewolves?

I guess we have different definitions of atheism then. I always thought of it as the belief in the non-existence of gods. Since gods can't be disproved using the scientific method, it requires a belief to hold that claim.

Warewolves can't be disproved using the scientific method.

The scientific method is based around facts, real hard evidence that exists in the physical world. If you're implying there is anything beyond that that is entirely up to your imagination.

If your divine being (warewolves/god) requires that a totally separate and indeterminable state of existence (or inexistence, if you like) has to exist (without existing) so that your divine being (warewolves/god) may exist outside of existance. Then, quite frankly my dear, you are insane.

[Shoozza]

Just a little bit of entertainment you might enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

[13th_account]

Do you believe in warewolves?

Nope.

Warewolves can't be disproved using the scientific method.

Exactly.

[TheOne]

The link I posted clearly states that your claim is not scientifically correct.
Incomplete means that there is always something not included in your set of knowledge.
Your "Yes." sounded like you either didn't bother reading or understanding it even though you're hooding under rationality.

[Fryer]

1 - Warewolf example already given. Is it efficient to consider that any concievable non-existant being could exist? No it's not. It's most efficient to presume unless there is any evidence that none of them exist. No exceptions. Especially mythical men who look like santa-clause and are proclaimed by poorly educated people to have created the universe.

I still think it's quite interesting to think about how such stuff could possibly exist without us knowing about it, as a fun thing to do when i'm bored, to keep my mood and brain activity up; in this case I can't really see your argument working.

2 - It's called dramatic pacing.

Quite messy to use it like this in a post, don't you think? I wont keep arguing against it though; matter of personal preference.

[Smegma]

Take into account that it is scientifically proven: Any system of axioms is either incomplete or inconsistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

See there, thats how I know you dont know what Gödel's theorem is about.

[Rai-Dei]

I do not care if God exists, I do not care if God does not exist. I do not consider the belief important, it's a waste of mind. Bible thumping and bible burning are both unnecessary wastes of time. "Curing" someone of a belief is useless, and I'm selfish with my time.

Insanity is a legal term, using it in terms of one's cognition is a dismissal of mind. Minds are importantly complex things, you're wasting your mind by dismissing another mind. You don't seem to be seeking an understanding, or a useful conclusion, you just want to assert a special clarity & superiority of mind.

Dick-swinging under the guise of rationality is ridiculous, spend your time thinking about things that matter.

[TheOne]

Alright, it was described in a too simplified way. However, showing up MY mistake does not have an impact on the message, for I am convinced that the conditions are met. Here we have an "effective method" to decide about facts and existance.

Even if I am mistaken and this theorem can not be used, still the phrase Mangled started with is narrow minded and can never be true for everything. It means shaping the reality according to your knowledge and denying anything you don't know about. Our knowledge is far more limited than reality is.

[Smegma]

Well, I'm not agreeing with mangled at all. This thread is pretty pointless. I am completely unimpressed with Mangled's stance on this subject, as it seems to lack any real originality or respect for the subject matter given. This is why I'm with Rai-Dei. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with exploring religious thought, but it tends to attract people like mangled. The type of personality that thrives on spitting out another person's ideas to one-up another individual. I think Rai-Dei put it fine and there's nothing really more to add.

However, I did not mean to sleight your opinion by correcting you. I believe you to have more respect for the underlying issue at hand than mangled, however you were still misleading and I simply wished to clear it up. I do not believe we can apply Godel's theorem here as we have little clue to what axiomatic system Mangled is using other than it depends on classical two valued logic, which Godel's theorem relies on anyway as well. I also think you have not quite understood the definition of completeness, at least this is what I want to say, as it doesn't depend on the total knowledge of all things, simply what the truths the formal system can generate which must be provable under that system. Your definition makes it impossible for any system to ever be complete, which makes the definition kind of useless in this sense.

I just wanted to clear this up because I feel this type of thinking leads to less creativity and ultimately a lesser understanding of logic's underpinnings.

[Mangled*]

The link I posted clearly states that your claim is not scientifically correct.
Incomplete means that there is always something not included in your set of knowledge.
Your "Yes." sounded like you either didn't bother reading or understanding it even though you're hooding under rationality.

I didn't bother reading. Did you?

I still think it's quite interesting to think about how such stuff could possibly exist without us knowing about it, as a fun thing to do when i'm bored, to keep my mood and brain activity up; in this case I can't really see your argument working.

I think it's very interesting to think about what could exist elsewhere in the universe. Who knows what kinds of lifeforms have developed elsewhere? I am open to possibilites. That doesn't mean I have to patronise ridiculous ideas by pretending they are valid or anything outside of delusional.

Propose anything to me and I'll tell you why I think it is or isn't feasible.

Dick-swinging under the guise of rationality is ridiculous, spend your time thinking about things that matter.

What do you take me for? 

Alright, it was described in a too simplified way. However, showing up MY mistake does not have an impact on the message, for I am convinced that the conditions are met. Here we have an "effective method" to decide about facts and existance.

Even if I am mistaken and this theorem can not be used, still the phrase Mangled started with is narrow minded and can never be true for everything. It means shaping the reality according to your knowledge and denying anything you don't know about. Our knowledge is far more limited than reality is.

Narrow minded? Because I bash religion and human mythology? That's a very narrow minded view of what narrow minded means. I never applied my rationalisation to anything beyond human mythology. I stated nothing but sheer logic in saying that things that do not exist can neither be proven nor disproven, by their very nature.

Seriously if you can't take that concept on board I don't think you should be pasting links to wikipedia articles here as if they validate your narrow perception of what I'm expressing.

Well, I'm not agreeing with mangled at all. This thread is pretty pointless. I am completely unimpressed with Mangled's stance on this subject, as it seems to lack any real originality or respect for the subject matter given. This is why I'm with Rai-Dei. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with exploring religious thought, but it tends to attract people like mangled. The type of personality that thrives on spitting out another person's ideas to one-up another individual. I think Rai-Dei put it fine and there's nothing really more to add.

What thread isn't pointless? The OP is a troll and you are all responding.

Yeah Rai-Dai is just so indie! Mangled is just so mainstream with his philosophy. You're just a hipster, I hope you realise. And you only come out from your den when I post threads like these. Exploring religious thought obviously attracts people like you too. Here you are! One-upping me!

However, I did not mean to sleight your opinion by correcting you. I believe you to have more respect for the underlying issue at hand than mangled, however you were still misleading and I simply wished to clear it up. I do not believe we can apply Godel's theorem here as we have little clue to what axiomatic system Mangled is using other than it depends on classical two valued logic, which Godel's theorem relies on anyway as well. I also think you have not quite understood the definition of completeness, at least this is what I want to say, as it doesn't depend on the total knowledge of all things, simply what the truths the formal system can generate which must be provable under that system. Your definition makes it impossible for any system to ever be complete, which makes the definition kind of useless in this sense.

I just wanted to clear this up because I feel this type of thinking leads to less creativity and ultimately a lesser understanding of logic's underpinnings.

However, I agree with everything you said here.

See Smegma, you are not so daft. But maybe you have an inferiority complex?

[Smegma]

Exploring religious thought obviously attracts people like you too. Here you are! One-upping me!

I never said I wasn't. Although, the main thing that attracted me was TheOne's comment.

However, I agree with everything you said here.

See Smegma, you are not so daft. But maybe you have an inferiority complex?

I don't think we agree with quite everything in this post, implicitly. I just feel your point could have been conveyed a bit better and explored more, in fact its a very interesting thing to think about. Its still a bit pointless as trolling threads like these could be spent on better discussion or even just thinking by yourself.

[Mangled*]

I don't think we agree with quite everything in this post, implicitly. I just feel your point could have been conveyed a bit better and explored more, in fact its a very interesting thing to think about. Its still a bit pointless as trolling threads like these could be spent on better discussion or even just thinking by yourself.

I've no doubt that my point could have been conveyed a bit better, but it's an internet forum, I can't afford to scrutinise all of my spew.

It is an interesting thing to think about. Maybe you'd like to initiate a new and more intense discussion?

[Smegma]

Possibly, if I can organize my thoughts in a concentrated manner then I may.

[Keron Cyst]

I want them to question their beliefs and I feel ridiculing them is a perfectly acceptable way of going about this. If I can make just one religious person feel like they are stupid for what they believe in then I've done my job.

... I don't know what to say to that. But John Wooden would: "Why is it so hard for us to realize that we cannot antagonize and positively influence at the same time?"

Werewolf doesn't have an "a" in it.

[Rai-Dei]

What do you take me for? 

Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?

Validation victory. If you are argued with here, you assume the other is less intelligent/less enlightened than yourself, proving mastery. If you're agreed with here, you eat it up, building yourself as some sort of rational seer. A win-win of a miniscule and pathetic proportion.

[Mangled*]

Werewolf doesn't have an "a" in it.

You've embarrassed me.

What do you take me for? 

Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?

Validation victory. If you are argued with here, you assume the other is less intelligent/less enlightened than yourself, proving mastery. If you're agreed with here, you eat it up, building yourself as some sort of rational seer. A win-win of a miniscule and pathetic proportion.

You've embarrassed me.

[ds dude]

What do you take me for? 

Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?

Validation victory. If you are argued with here, you assume the other is less intelligent/less enlightened than yourself, proving mastery. If you're agreed with here, you eat it up, building yourself as some sort of rational seer. A win-win of a miniscule and pathetic proportion.

LOL.

>implying other internet boards are any better