Losing The Faith

[Norsklow]

The fact that you find 100 red significant because humans are biased to like simple patterns doesn't make it any more or less likely.

So far so good. But one little thing:

It's not human observation. It's fact. It never happened.

And for it to work in Liger's place: it must happen continuously, without interruption!

It's literally not impossible, its IMPROBABLE.

No matter if it hasn't happened before, it is literally not outside of reason and science for something like that to happen.

Chances are REALLY FUCKING SMALL, but the chance still EXISTS.

Proof?

[Zna]

You're going to have a bad time looking for absolute fact in religion.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Also, I forgot to address the problem of Muslim and pantheistic martyrs; first of all, while I stressed the creation of the universe as disproving atheism, it equally disproves pantheism, as the pantheistic god has no ability to make choices WHY, and the creation of the universe was obviously a choice. So Hindu and Buddhist martyrs are discounted.

You can't even comprehend the idea of choice as a mere human.

Muslim martyrs are a bit more of a problem; their belief is just as sound with the scientific evidence as Christian beliefs are, but I can still use logic to take on this challenge.
I actually am glad you noticed the lack of proof that the Christian martyrs had more behind them than Muslim martyrs. However, I do have proof, which begins with this- the time period.
While Muslim martyrs certainly BELIEVE what they die for, they did not live along Muhammad as the disciples lived among Jesus, which automatically gives the disciples more credit, as people could verify their miracle claims- which they did. In fact, not only do Muslim martyrs not have eyewitness testimony to back their claims up- Muhammad's followers didn't see any miracles of his either. No miracles are mentioned in the Koran, and other sources claiming miracles have been discredited by Muslims themselves. Besides, Islam spread because Muhammad conquered Arabia- Christianity spread DESPITE Rome outlawing it. Why would you believe a religion despite being killed for it- because you have eyewitnesses to back you up or you are an eyewitness yourself. Besides, I never said the Muslim martyrs were LYING- I said they were mistaken, and the martyr argument was to disprove the idea that Christianity was a lie, not to disprove it being WRONG. I already proved the dilemma that exists when you say the disciples were mistaken, so the only option left is that Jesus IS God. I hope you consider this argument.

Didn't care about the rest, responses in red.

[Czechanada]

Hello Nation States. I am a 15 year old african american baptist. I use to be very faithful but recently i have began losing my faith. I ask if anyone can help me by posting some proof that God Almight is Real or Fake. This challange goes out to every religion.Athiest to. Give some proof that your religion is Real or Fake.

I hope to get a lot of infomation.

I'm a 16 year old Methodist in a predominantly athiest community, so here's my two cents.

There is no proof of a deity's existance, or proof of a deity not existing.
That is why religion is called faith.

There are allot of anti-thiests around here who will practically try to convert you to being an athiest, all you have to remember is that, unless you're a biblical literalist, they really have no high point were they can say "There is no God" with scientific facts to back them up. They act on faith just as much as theists do.

Good God, man. You need to learn about the burden of proof and the null hypothesis.

[Ceannairceach]

Also, I forgot to address the problem of Muslim and pantheistic martyrs; first of all, while I stressed the creation of the universe as disproving atheism, it equally disproves pantheism, as the pantheistic god has no ability to make choices, and the creation of the universe was obviously a choice. So Hindu and Buddhist martyrs are discounted.

Pantheistic god? No such thing. Pantheists believe that every or most gods are real. Thus, your point is invalid. Also, Hindus believe in multiple gods, but have a creator deity. I don't know the Buddhist creation story, but I don't think it involves a god.

Muslim martyrs are a bit more of a problem; their belief is just as sound with the scientific evidence as Christian beliefs are, but I can still use logic to take on this challenge.

Oh, this will be fun.

I actually am glad you noticed the lack of proof that the Christian martyrs had more behind them than Muslim martyrs. However, I do have proof, which begins with this- the time period.
While Muslim martyrs certainly BELIEVE what they die for, they did not live along Muhammad as the disciples lived among Jesus, which automatically gives the disciples more credit, as people could verify their miracle claims- which they did.

Rather, we have verifiable evidence that Mohammad existed, and that much of what was said of him can be found in histories of the era. With Jesus, there are still debates as to if he was a real person or not. Again, your point is invalid.

In fact, not only do Muslim martyrs not have eyewitness testimony to back their claims up- Muhammad's followers didn't see any miracles of his either. No miracles are mentioned in the Koran, and other sources claiming miracles have been discredited by Muslims themselves.

They didn't see any miracles because Muslims don't believe that he did any. He was a prophet, not a miracle maker, and gave express orders to not make him an idol. For that reason, your point is, again, invalid.

Besides, Islam spread because Muhammad conquered Arabia- Christianity spread DESPITE Rome outlawing it. Why would you believe a religion despite being killed for it- because you have eyewitnesses to back you up or you are an eyewitness yourself.

Why did Islam spread beyond Arabia, then? And how do you explain Christianity's spread beyond the Empire if not by the sword? Also, why would martyrs of a later era, say in Britain or elsewhere post-Jesus, give up their lives when no eyewitnesses existed?

Besides, I never said the Muslim martyrs were LYING- I said they were mistaken, and the martyr argument was to disprove the idea that Christianity was a lie, not to disprove it being WRONG. I already proved the dilemma that exists when you say the disciples were mistaken, so the only option left is that Jesus IS God. I hope you consider this argument.

They are no more or less mistaken than you are, given the lack of evidence. The only option left, actually, is to not believe until actual evidence is presented, rather than your rather poor attempts at verification of your chosen god.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It's literally not impossible, its IMPROBABLE.

No matter if it hasn't happened before, it is literally not outside of reason and science for something like that to happen.

Chances are REALLY FUCKING SMALL, but the chance still EXISTS.

Proof?

A roulette wheel has roughly half the numbers as red (discounting 00).

Taking that as a fact, we can safely say you have a 50% chance of getting red.

Doing so twice would be a 50% chance, and then another 50% chance if successful, which comes out to a 25% chance.

Taken mathematically, if we put this as an equation, 0.5^100=X. We can find the chance of getting red 100 times in a row.

Calculator says 7.8886090522101180541172856528279e-31% chance, extremely small.

Notice that it is above zero, that leads us to believe that it is still mathematically possible for us to reach this result.

Just very unlikely.

Liger out bitches.

[CVT Temp]

It's literally not impossible, its IMPROBABLE.

No matter if it hasn't happened before, it is literally not outside of reason and science for something like that to happen.

Chances are REALLY FUCKING SMALL, but the chance still EXISTS.

It's probability is actually infinitesimal, and therefore zero. It's not impossible, but it does have zero probability. And no, those aren't the same thing.

BTW, I'm talking about your infinitely continuously varying completely chaotic universe and not the 100 red thing.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

It's literally not impossible, its IMPROBABLE.

No matter if it hasn't happened before, it is literally not outside of reason and science for something like that to happen.

Chances are REALLY FUCKING SMALL, but the chance still EXISTS.

It's probability is actually infinitesimal, and therefore zero. It's not impossible, but it does have zero probability. And no, those aren't the same thing.

BTW, I'm talking about your infinitely continuously varying completely chaotic universe and not the 100 red thing.

How is infinitesimal equal to zero? An asymptote of zero never actually becomes zero, no matter how close it gets.

If you mean just for practical reasoning, then yes, I never disagreed there.

[Norsklow]

Proof?

A roulette wheel has roughly half the numbers as red (discounting 00).

Taking that as a fact, we can safely say you have a 50% chance of getting red.

Doing so twice would be a 50% chance, and then another 50% chance if successful, which comes out to a 25% chance.

Taken mathematically, if we put this as an equation, 0.5^100=X. We can find the chance of getting red 100 times in a row.

Calculator says 7.8886090522101180541172856528279e-31% chance, extremely small.

Notice that it is above zero, that leads us to believe that it is still mathematically possible for us to reach this result.

Just very unlikely.

Liger out bitches.

Reality say after 38 it stops.

[Srboslavija]

Christian
37
32%

Vote my brothers! Let our majority be known.

[Infinitive]

The universe is not infinite (if it is expanding, then it has a definite ending point, even if we can never reach it due to it moving faster than light) proving your infinite planet hypothesis wrong.
"Meh"? Is that scientific?
'Something that goes beyond nature is as probable as nature coming from nothing"? First of all, a supernatural entity would not be "from"; being outside time, prepositions would not apply to it. Also, I already explained this; either the universe is eternal, or something outside the universe is. Supernatural entities are not illogical, even if they are not real: finite beings without cause are. Process of elimination, my friends. Besides, a supernatural entity is not subject to probability- it either is and cannot be riddled with likelihood, or is not and cannot be created. Besides, supernatural entities, being OUTSIDE physics, cannot violate them; matter being created from zilch, and, due to relativity, time being out of nothing, DOES violate them.
"Time is infinite"? This is disproven by the fact that NOW is the end of time; besides, time, matter, and space are relative, and if matter and space are finite, which I just proved, then so is time.
"I have no proof"? I do have proof. The first premise is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; as disorder increases, energy will become unusable until all usable energy is gone, motion ceases, time ends, and therefore the universe ends. To deny the second law is to deny observation; try leaving a car out to nature's forces for a year and see what happens. As for the energy of the law: as energy spreads, it becomes more and more unusable, creating disorder, so order and energy ARE connected. The second premise is a logical one: things cannot end without having begun. Think about it; a single end proves the finite nature of a subject, but being finite requires two ends, so the universe not only will end, but began. The conclusion follows from the premises.
"No proof"? Sometimes proof doesn't have to be scientific; it can be logical too.
As for the last note- good point. Did you read my other posts?
Also, a creator cannot be "improbable"- it is either necessary or impossible. The evidence eliminates impossible, so necessary is a result of the process of elimination.

[CVT Temp]

How is infinitesimal equal to zero? An asymptote of zero never actually becomes zero, no matter how close it gets.

If you mean just for practical reasoning, then yes, I never disagreed there.

Because the asymptote is always finite for finite values of x. It's never infinitesimal for finite values of x. In the case of real numbers, the squeeze theorem shows that R has no non-zero infinitesimals.

[Ceannairceach]

The universe is not infinite (if it is expanding, then it has a definite ending point, even if we can never reach it due to it moving faster than light) proving your infinite planet hypothesis wrong.

"Meh"? Is that scientific?

'Something that goes beyond nature is as probable as nature coming from nothing"? First of all, a supernatural entity would not be "from"; being outside time, prepositions would not apply to it.

Let me stop you right there. If something is outside of time, then it is outside of reality, and thus cannot affect us or our universe.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Christian
37
32%

Vote my brothers! Let our majority be known.

You aren't a majority here, and some atheists, myself included, aren't voting in the poll because it considers atheism to be a religion.

[CVT Temp]

The universe is not infinite (if it is expanding, then it has a definite ending point, even if we can never reach it due to it moving faster than light) proving your infinite planet hypothesis wrong.

I don't think you understand what the expansion of space itself means. The expansion is not happening in space. The expansion is of space itself. It doesn't have a center or an edge.

"Time is infinite"? This is disproven by the fact that NOW is the end of time; besides, time, matter, and space are relative, and if matter and space are finite, which I just proved, then so is time.

No, "now" is not the end of time. The end of time would topologically be a boundary. In other words, the end of time would be the last moment to ever exist. Since the present is still continuing into the future, it is not the end of time.

"I have no proof"? I do have proof. The first premise is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; as disorder increases, energy will become unusable until all usable energy is gone, motion ceases, time ends, and therefore the universe ends. To deny the second law is to deny observation; try leaving a car out to nature's forces for a year and see what happens. As for the energy of the law: as energy spreads, it becomes more and more unusable, creating disorder, so order and energy ARE connected. The second premise is a logical one: things cannot end without having begun. Think about it; a single end proves the finite nature of a subject, but being finite requires two ends, so the universe not only will end, but began. The conclusion follows from the premises.
"No proof"? Sometimes proof doesn't have to be scientific; it can be logical too.
As for the last note- good point. Did you read my other posts?

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a closed system tends to increase over time. It only shows that the observable universe likely has a finite age. It does not show that all of existence has a finite age.

Also, a creator cannot be "improbable"- it is either necessary or impossible. The evidence eliminates impossible, so necessary is a result of the process of elimination.

Do you have a proof which shows that it is either necessary or impossible? How are you defining these terms.

[Fjormark]

Hello Nation States. I am a 15 year old african american baptist. I use to be very faithful but recently i have began losing my faith. I ask if anyone can help me by posting some proof that God Almight is Real or Fake. This challange goes out to every religion.Athiest to. Give some proof that your religion is Real or Fake.

I hope to get a lot of infomation.

This is pretty damn stupid, I'm not surprised you're losing your faith.
It's been said and I repeat, Christianity (Like most popular religions) is a religion based on faith; you can't simply ask for proof of a divine being.

[Norstal]

Christian
37
32%

Vote my brothers! Let our majority be known.

Imperialism in the 21st century.

[CVT Temp]

This is pretty damn stupid, I'm not surprised you're losing your faith.
It's been said and I repeat, Christianity (Like most popular religions) is a religion based on faith; you can't simply ask for proof of a divine being.

Why not? What power does the word "divine" have that suddenly makes the claim non-empirical? The claim has only been made "non-empirical" because of the continual failure over the centuries to defend it on rational grounds. As a last ditch defense mechanism, the idea was stated to be "outside of science" and everyone just went along with it.

[Gideus]

Just saying, you should allow two or three choices on the poll. You should also take a look at some of it - "Witchcraft" for example should be called "Wicca" as that is the "religion" based on it.

Why I say allow for more choices, I'm born Jewish and like a lot of the culture and traditions, but identify as a philosophical/LaVeyan Satanist, which is not about worshiping anything.

Anyways, I have very heavily agnostic/atheist tendencies (I prefer the tradition to the faith) but I do have to say what has been said: Don't ask us for proof. This is an overwhelmingly atheist community and it would be a crime to yourself to accept the words of complete strangers as your proof and/or faith/truth. You've like never met any of us and likely never will; why should we be the deciding factor in your faith?

Your faith is yours and yours alone to choose. Don't let a priest, a rabbi, an imam, your parents, the bloody Pope himself (I would so borrow his hat if I could), or anyone else decide your faith for you. I know this personally as, being born Jewish, I've been in a Jewish household my entire life, learned Hebrew (To an extent. I am very grateful for this as it is actually quite a beautiful language, especially the prose of the prayers.), had a Bar Mitzvah, yet I've transitioned (Partially due to living with my dad who is extremely irreverent and doesn't care enough to classify himself as an atheist or agnostic even) to a less faithful individual, simply because I see no reason to believe in something that doesn't prove itself. But does this mean I choose simply because I lack the faith to abandon the entire religion?

No. I enjoy the traditions, the food, and some of the structure I gain as part of the Reform Jewish community in this city. Despite my faith-related and philosophical differences with members of the local Reform Jewish community and with members of my temple, I am still welcome there.

The point is, don't blindly conform to something that someone else tells you. You need to find something for yourself, something you like. But it doesn't stop there. If you like following all the rules, do that. But if you disagree or don't like something, don't do it. Simply make your own belief and philosophy around it; if the community no longer accepts you then they don't deserve you. Be a Satanist and go to church every Sunday if that is what you please (though that is a bit contradictory). Be a member of the religion/beliefs of Wicca and believe that the Judeo-Christian god is a fellow deity among those that you worship.

That's it, I hope it wasn't too hard to understand.

[Srboslavija]

Vote my brothers! Let our majority be known.

You aren't a majority here, and some atheists, myself included, aren't voting in the poll because it considers atheism to be a religion.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=205674&start=1525

The previous NSG religion census shows Christianity as the single largest group - that's even after a fair bit of late vote rigging from the "non-believers".

[Hallistar]

Hello Nation States. I am a 15 year old african american baptist. I use to be very faithful but recently i have began losing my faith. I ask if anyone can help me by posting some proof that God Almight is Real or Fake. This challange goes out to every religion.Athiest to. Give some proof that your religion is Real or Fake.

I hope to get a lot of infomation.

This is pretty damn stupid, I'm not surprised you're losing your faith.
It's been said and I repeat, Christianity (Like most popular religions) is a religion based on faith; you can't simply ask for proof of a divine being.

Faith is not a virtue. If any kind of deity makes no effort beyond a repeatedly retranslated millenia old text and anecdotal 'evidence' and sensations, to prove their existence, and will then burn you for all eternity or what-not for *GASP* not believing in them, then they've got their priorities mixed.

It's like being told that, as you are sitting down, you might currently be in the middle of an invisible physics test examination area, and you are currently taking a test. You cannot feel anything or see anything of such nature, and also perhaps there is no such thing happening. At the same time though, this physics test that you cannot feel or see, yet must write down the answers to, even though you can't see the questions. The questions as well could be any of over a trillion combinations that you don't know, and they are arbitrary. If you don't make some attempt to write the answers to the invisible questions on the invisble physics test that you can't see or feel, you might either not have anything happen to you at all, or it might somehow disqualify you from all future jobs and make you live a miserable life because it ruined your GPA and etc. And then your school teachers torture you for eternity or something.

[Hallistar]

You aren't a majority here, and some atheists, myself included, aren't voting in the poll because it considers atheism to be a religion.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=205674&start=1525

The previous NSG religion census shows Christianity as the single largest group - that's even after a fair bit of late vote rigging from the "non-believers".

Late vote rigging? Please.

If anything, I'd expect the Christian group to do that, considering I've never seen such numbers or percentage from them in any other poll. Besides, vote-rigging would surely be ok with Jesus as long as they advanced the goal of showing greater support for him than the atheists.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

The universe is not infinite (if it is expanding, then it has a definite ending point, even if we can never reach it due to it moving faster than light) proving your infinite planet hypothesis wrong.

The KNOWN universe is expanding, as in what we know exists. There is no actual limit to the void.

"Meh"? Is that scientific?
'Something that goes beyond nature is as probable as nature coming from nothing"? First of all, a supernatural entity would not be "from"; being outside time, prepositions would not apply to it.Also, I already explained this; either the universe is eternal, or something outside the universe is. Supernatural entities are not illogical, even if they are not real: finite beings without cause are.

Stop right there, being supernatural in itself is beyond logic, which is the point. They are just as logical as finite entities appearing without cause. Whether you believe one or the other is true is up to you.

Process of elimination, my friends. Besides, a supernatural entity is not subject to probability- it either is and cannot be riddled with likelihood, or is not and cannot be created. Besides, supernatural entities, being OUTSIDE physics, cannot violate them;

Being supernatural in itself is a violation.

matter being created from zilch, and, due to relativity, time being out of nothing, DOES violate them.

Just as much as a supernatural entity.

"Time is infinite"? This is disproven by the fact that NOW is the end of time;

One indivisible frame of it

besides, time, matter, and space are relative, and if matter and space are finite, which I just proved, then so is time.

Time and Space need no matter or energy to exist.
"I have no proof"? I do have proof. The first premise is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; as disorder increases, energy will become unusable until all usable energy is gone,

Energy dissipates into its lowest form, it doesn't disappear, only seemingly.

motion ceases, time ends

No it doesn't, it requires nothing
, and therefore the universe ends. To deny the second law is to deny observation; try leaving a car out to nature's forces for a year and see what happens.

Example is irrelevant, the matter if the car doesn't cease to exist, it is literally destruction. Entropy of structure. But that which makes up the car simply detaches from the car form or transforms into other matter forms.

As for the energy of the law: as energy spreads, it becomes more and more unusable, creating disorder, so order and energy ARE connected.

Not the laws of nature themselves

The second premise is a logical one: things cannot end without having begun. Think about it; a single end proves the finite nature of a subject,

No Proof, we can't even picture something that has no start, so saying the properties suggested are real mean nil. but being finite requires two ends, so the universe not only will end, but began. The conclusion follows from the premises.
"No proof"? Sometimes proof doesn't have to be scientific; it can be logical too.

Neither there.
As for the last note- good point. Did you read my other posts?
Also, a creator cannot be "improbable"- it is either necessary or impossible. Proof needed
The evidence eliminates impossible, so necessary is a result of the process of elimination.

[Norstal]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=205674&start=1525

The previous NSG religion census shows Christianity as the single largest group - that's even after a fair bit of late vote rigging from the "non-believers".

Late vote rigging? Please.

If anything, I'd expect the Christian group to do that, considering I've never seen such numbers or percentage from them in any other poll. Besides, vote-rigging would surely be ok with Jesus as long as they advanced the goal of showing greater support for him than the atheists.

And their own testimony that this forum is full of atheists.

I don't know why, but the more I spend time on this forum, the lower my opinion go for Christians.

[Srboslavija]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=205674&start=1525

The previous NSG religion census shows Christianity as the single largest group - that's even after a fair bit of late vote rigging from the "non-believers".

Late vote rigging? Please.

If anything, I'd expect the Christian group to do that, considering I've never seen such numbers or percentage from them in any other poll. Besides, vote-rigging would surely be ok with Jesus as long as they advanced the goal of showing greater support for him than the atheists.

Honesty and integrity are central to the teachings of JC. If anyone is vote rigging it's atheists, with the lack of morality and whatnot.

As for NSGs Christian majority - it tends to be silent. And it's little wonder because I speak out and get persecuted for my efforts. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=207346&p=11519029#p11519029