Religious Views?

[Narkro555]

If there is something outside of our universe not bound by any sort of physical laws, how do we know of its existence? All evidence points toward it being made up. No god has had any true effect besides coincidences chosen to be taken as miracles or signs. There is no way a normal person could have learned about such an untraceable being 2000 years ago. The whole idea is a load of crap made up to control gullible people.

[Ad Bot]

[Headcrab Zombie]

Whether or not God is disprovable depends on what the definition of God is.
If you mean in the most generic form possible, simply A GOD, then no, you can't prove or disprove it.
But if the God is very specifically defined, with very specific properties, and doing very specific actions, for example the Christian God, and all the things very specifically defined in the Bible, you can brown townyze these things, find out that said actions do not or have not occurred, and you come up with one of two conclusions: either God exists, and he is deliberately deceiving us so he can punishing us for being deceived (which is completely irrational and goes against the Christian claim of a good, loving God), or he doesn't exist

so being Atheist and saying that there definitely isn't a God

Also atheism isn't saying that there definitely isn't a god

[Nymethus]

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

This doesn't make sense. I'll continue with the rest of your post.

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.

There's still no reason for God to exist. You keep asking me if I understand. I understand perfectly well what you're saying. It's your turn to understand.

If there is something outside of our universe not bound by any sort of physical laws, how do we know of its existence? All evidence points toward it being made up. No god has had any true effect besides coincidences chosen to be taken as miracles or signs. There is no way a normal person could have learned about such an untraceable being 2000 years ago. The whole idea is a load of crap made up to control gullible people.

[Quark]

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.

[Daedalus]

atheism isn't saying that there definitely isn't a god

yes it is
it's the disbelief in religious beliefs

[Quark]

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.

[Nymethus]

A reason is pretty much necessary for something to exist. Atoms must exist because everything is the way it is. (seriously) Same with physics.
Of course something could exist even if it's "unnecessary" (whatever you mean by that) but whatever it is we still need to provide a reason for it to exist.
We don't know that God doesn't need to exist for everything to be the way it is, but we don't have any reason to believe that there is a god.

[Quark]

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.

[Nymethus]

The universe exists because we're here to observe it.
The laws of physics being the way they are specifically prevents them from being in any other way.
This is perfectly reasonable since they are the way they are.
We still don't have any reason to believe that there is a god.

[Quark]

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.

[Headcrab Zombie]

yes it is
it's the disbelief in religious beliefs

You can choose not to believe in something without entirely rejecting its possibility.
Most atheists simply reject the specifically defined gods of organized religions (refer to my previous post). I don't know any who would entirely dismiss the possibility of a deistic god.
Maybe if you didn't completely ignore the many people who have explained this to you, you'd have understood this by now.
I'll explain it to Quark though, maybe if I'm lucky you'll listen this time.

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.

Agnosticism vs gnosticism is about knowledge - whether or not the existence of gods is knowable
atheism vs theism is about personal belief - whether or not you belief gods to exist
It's not one dimensional, Atheist --- Agnostic --- Theist, as you're suggesting it
Simply saying "I'm agnostic" says nothing about your personal belief, simply saying "I'm atheist" does not mean you claim to know gods definitely do not exist. When an atheist says that God can be disproven, they are almost always talking about God. Capitalized. Proper noun. The Christian God, or whatever god belief is most prevalent in their area.
Agnostic atheist - "Gods can not be definitely proven or disproven to exist, but I choose not to believe in them"
(Following with your second sentence, most atheists are agnostic atheists)
Gnostic atheist - "Gods definitely do not exist"
Agnostic theist -"Gods can not be definitely proven or disproven to exist, but I choose to believe in them"
Gnostic theist - "God definitely do exist"

[Quark]

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.

[Nymethus]

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

I was just saying it in a different way, that's all. There are other things that "observe".

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'.

Why wouldn't the laws of physics always be the way they are though? why would they have been any different? Why would there be a god?

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

This is just dumb reasoning.

0: I think there's an apple in the box.
1: How come?
0: Why wouldn't there be an apple in the box?

That is not how we do things because it doesn't make any sense.

[Narkro555]

Short answer: because anything could be somewhere we can't see, we can't automatically assume that there is only one thing that could be there. For all we know that place outside the universe in which physics couldnt apply could be filled with spaghetti. A total lack of evidence does not mean we automatically assign a god as the true cause.

[Daedalus]

You can choose not to believe in something without entirely rejecting its possibility.
Most atheists simply reject the specifically defined gods of organized religions (refer to my previous post). I don't know any who would entirely dismiss the possibility of a deistic god.
Maybe if you didn't completely ignore the many people who have explained this to you, you'd have understood this by now.
I'll explain it to Quark though, maybe if I'm lucky you'll listen this time.

Stop getting so hotheaded, I was just stating what I thought.
As for the rest of your post - you're absolutely correct, except you missed one. I am completely neutral with religion. I do not lean to either side, because there is no proof towards either. This is what I mean when I call myself agnostic. I believe it's illogical to choose to believe in either side.