Messages

1

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 12:12:00 PM »

Arguing terminology changes very little. My argument still applies, if you only believe in something which can be logically or scientifically proven then you can't deny or accept the existence of a deity of any sort. I'm not saying it is wrong to believe that there isn't or that there is without having justification, it's just as a strong believer in science and logic, it would be hypocritical of me to have a belief either way. I think calling myself Agnostic because of this is a reasonable thing to do and that the majority of people will understand. Obfuscating matters be introducing excess terminology may be more accurate but it won't alter anything else.

2

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 12:02:00 PM »

The universe exists because we're here to observe it.

The Universe would exist regardless of whether we are observing it or not. Before life, there was still the Universe.

The laws of physics being the way they are specifically prevents them from being in any other way.

The laws of physics, as they currently stand, allow for changes in the physical constants. The laws of physics were not constant, they were only brought into existence upon the creation of the Universe, at that point any such combination of laws would have 'worked'. There is no reason why they must always be how they are not if the the Universe were to be 're-run'.

This is perfectly reasonable since they are the way they are.

Physics being the way they are is not a reason for or against physics, it is just a fact.

We still don't have any reason to believe that there is a god.

We have no reason to believe that there isn't. Again, please show me why something must have a reason to exist.

My argument for Agnosticism is that you could not conclusively prove either way that God existed or does not exist. I've yet to have such a method suggested and so retain my beliefs fully. Only if you could find a scientific way of doing such a thing would my opinion change.

3

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 11:48:43 AM »

I assume you're paraphrasing the anthropic principle? There is no reason for the Universe even existing. A reason for something is incredibly subjective, I'd like to know what you mean by it. Also, you appear to be saying atoms must exist because atoms exist. Not everything must have a reason, no scientific or logical principle requires it. The laws of Physics could be different, nothing specifically prevents it.

4

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 11:38:09 AM »

More specifically the disbelief in the existence of a God or deity. This is why I say earlier that I think a lot of people who say they are Atheist are in fact Agnostic.

5

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 11:34:01 AM »

What I was trying to say was that a reason is not necessary for something to exist. There is no reason why atoms must exist, they just do. There is no reason why physics is as it is, it just is. I agree that a God is not necessary, but just because something is unnecessary does not disprove its existence.

And I am not arguing for religion here. Religion is a different matter. Religion takes the idea of being Theist and then tells us that there are real world consequences because of that. I disagree completely with this and with many of the practices of religion. There is still no way we could be certain about the non-existence of a God. We can merely think it to be unlikely, even if this has no basis in fact.

6

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:59:17 AM »

wrong. he shouldn't exist because nothing says he does.

Nothing used to say the atoms existed, but they did. For something to exist, someone doesn't necessarily have to have said it does.

we can measure all measurable things and conclude that there is no reason for God to exist.

And God is unmeasurable... I don't get where you're going with this. If something exists outside the Universe, we can't measure it.

Do you understand my argument at all? Outside of the Universe ANYTHING could exist. We will never know what actually exists, because we can't measure it. There being some proof inside our Universe that such an object exists would be impossible, because we can't measure these things. This means that and infinite amount of things could exist outside of the Universe. One of such things could be God, another could be a tennis ball etc. Equally, there could be nothing. We'll never know either way, so being Atheist and saying that there definitely isn't a God is in effect saying that you believe there to be nothing outside of the Universe. Again, this is a possibility, but the probabilities are the same. Therefore, Agnosticism is the only logical option. To accept we will never know what is outside of our Universe and that it isn't worth our time considering it.

7

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:41:01 AM »

There is no reason why he should exist. There is equally no reason why he shouldn't exist. We can't provide a reason because we can't make measurements. Anything could exist beyond our Universe because it would not have to be bound by our laws of science. God is just one such possibility. Each and every possibility cannot be argued for or against, include Theism and Atheism. The entire argument is purely guesswork which is why I am Agnostic. I still don't get how you can't comprehend this very basic argument.

8

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:34:51 AM »

I'm not saying that there is or isn't a God. What I'm saying is that for God to exist, he'd have to exist outside of our Universe so as not to be bound by the constraints of our physical laws. Because of this, he becomes unmeasurable and therefore he can't be proven. Equivalently, you can't prove that God doesn't exist. It's metaphysics and therefore not a logical argument at all.

9

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:31:09 AM »

Just on a side note, there is energy in empty space. Google Vacuum Energy, or Zero Point Fluctuations.

10

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:29:08 AM »

We can't prove the laws of science apply outside of the Universe though, because we can't make measurements outside of the Universe. Science relies on a hypothesis, carrying out measurements and then putting forward an improved hypothesis. This breaks down when we can't measure something. Regardless of this, wherever God is, the laws of science must be different to accommodate his many omni-powers.

FYI: I am Agnostic.

11

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:21:56 AM »

Sorry, I thought this was a given. Let me justify. Before the Universe, God must have existed. So we can deduce God was at least not always within in the Universe. Assuming the Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence of God, he could not operate within the laws of science (he would be breaking the conservation of mass, energy and information laws). Therefore, the only reasonable way of excepting both Science and God is that God created the Universe from outside of it and 'looks in' so to speak.

12

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:16:28 AM »

The example has obviously confused you, sorry.

God can't be measured. God exists outside of the laws of science. Therefore, no experiment can be performed to determine whether God exists or not. This is then generalised to the fact that anything that operated outside of the Universe could not be empirically tested for. So anything COULD exist outside of the Universe, but as we have no way of checking and will never have any such method, assuming there to be a God or for there specifically not to be a God is pointless. You can never prove yourself right or wrong. Making an informed and logical decision relies on having proof or proof being a possibility. As proof is an impossibility under these circumstances, such a decision would not be a logical one.

13

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:09:00 AM »

You obviously haven't understood. If something can't be measured, you can't say for sure what is there, if anything. You could check whether your leaf did exist because you are placing it in a position where it can be measured.

If something can be in an infinite amount of possible states with equal probability, choosing one would be illogical.

14

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 10:03:41 AM »

I'll try one more time, although it is already clear that you are dismissing arguments for no apparent reason.

god probably doesn't exist. there isn't even a reason as to why he would.

There is no reason for a God to exist. Equally though, there is no reason why he should specifically not, or for why any other 'thing' exists outside of  our Universe.

Consider a box. There is no way of looking inside the box or measuring what is inside it in. You are asked what is in the box. Giving any answer would be ridiculous, it would be just as stupid to say nothing as to say there is a hammer. The only real answer you could give would be to say that there's no way of knowing and that the question itself is a ridiculous one. This is brown townogous to the situation with God.

15

Off Topic / Re: Religious Views?

« on: March 27, 2012, 09:55:12 AM »

I do not approve of this. You argument isn't good enough.

Oh what grounds?