Page 29 of 203

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 10:36 pm
by The Caleshan Valkyrie
Farnhamia wrote:
Olthar wrote:Why would an altruistic, loving God makes flowers that smell nice and then arbitrarily make a portion of the population unable to smell those flowers? It's just cruel and inhumane.

And lower back pain. Fallen arches. "In his image ..." I bet God doesn't have body odor or gas.


Or autoimmune disorders. Those suck.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:06 pm
by Dogmeat
Olthar wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:And lower back pain. Fallen arches. "In his image ..." I bet God doesn't have body odor or gas.

I also doubt God ever had acne, and I'm sure he has a full head of hair.

I don't know man. There was that one time God killed a bunch of kids for calling Elisha bald. Obviously it's a touchy issue for him.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:18 pm
by Olthar
Dogmeat wrote:
Olthar wrote:I also doubt God ever had acne, and I'm sure he has a full head of hair.

I don't know man. There was that one time God killed a bunch of kids for calling Elisha bald. Obviously it's a touchy issue for him.

Ooo, good point. Maybe God is bald. Maybe that's why we exist! God created a world where with men and women and made only one go bald so as to foster insecurity all so that we would eventually develop Rogaine and give God a way to cure his own baldness. That's why the second coming of Jesus hasn't happened yet: he's waiting for us to perfect hair restoration.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:21 pm
by Dogmeat
Olthar wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:I don't know man. There was that one time God killed a bunch of kids for calling Elisha bald. Obviously it's a touchy issue for him.

Ooo, good point. Maybe God is bald. Maybe that's why we exist! God created a world where with men and women and made only one go bald so as to foster insecurity all so that we would eventually develop Rogaine and give God a way to cure his own baldness. That's why the second coming of Jesus hasn't happened yet: he's waiting for us to perfect hair restoration.

This also explains why Picard is still bald in the 24th Century. They realized that curing him would bring about Armageddon.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:24 pm
by Olthar
Dogmeat wrote:
Olthar wrote:Ooo, good point. Maybe God is bald. Maybe that's why we exist! God created a world where with men and women and made only one go bald so as to foster insecurity all so that we would eventually develop Rogaine and give God a way to cure his own baldness. That's why the second coming of Jesus hasn't happened yet: he's waiting for us to perfect hair restoration.

This also explains why Picard is still bald in the 24th Century. They realized that curing him would bring about Armageddon.

It all makes sense! We need to destroy the beauty industry before they destroy us all!

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:04 am
by Kubra
Of course I believe in god
I mean, I'm right here.
I'm also a slob in public transit.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:45 am
by Gutulia
I believe in god because I will met god after I'm died

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:53 am
by An Alan Smithee Nation
Gutulia wrote:I believe in god because I will met god after I'm died


Have you died already?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:57 am
by Frievolk
Gutulia wrote:I believe in god because I will met god after I'm died

...
what

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:59 am
by New haven america
Frievolk wrote:
Gutulia wrote:I believe in god because I will met god after I'm died

...
what

Shhh, don't question the living dead, they ironically don't got time for that.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:00 am
by Western Vale Confederacy
Frievolk wrote:
Gutulia wrote:I believe in god because I will met god after I'm died

...
what


We are witnessing a religious experience right here, folks!

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:04 am
by The Free Joy State
Frievolk wrote:
Gutulia wrote:I believe in god because I will met god after I'm died

...
what

I believe they're saying that they believe in God so that they will meet God after they have died.

As for me, I am an equivocal believer. I choose to believe, because I like the idea of there being a higher power. I admit that I may be wrong, and I do not believe that belief is in anyway better to disbelief (in fact, I can't fully explain my own theism -- a highly religious early school may have something to do with it).

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:07 am
by Frievolk
In all seriousness though, I can't for certain say whether or not a species of entities with the descriptions attributed to the Christian-Islamic god exists or not, but I am absolutely and completely Certain that if it is possible that such an entity exists, there is definitely more than one of it.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:18 am
by Salandriagado
Upper Ireland wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:I know this one ... nothing can come from nothing, everything has to have a beginning, uhm ... we don't know everything so it must be God. Oh, and flagellas and irreducible complexity. *nodnod*

That's quite a bit of it, I guess.


You realise that's literally a list of arguments that don't work, right?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:42 am
by Page
The Free Joy State wrote:
Frievolk wrote:...
what

I believe they're saying that they believe in God so that they will meet God after they have died.

As for me, I am an equivocal believer. I choose to believe, because I like the idea of there being a higher power. I admit that I may be wrong, and I do not believe that belief is in anyway better to disbelief (in fact, I can't fully explain my own theism -- a highly religious early school may have something to do with it).


Is belief really something you can choose? I can't do that.

If someone hooked you up to a machine that could read your mind and said "If you can truly believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, I'll give you a million dollars." But no matter how much one wants the money, the incentive would make them wish they believed but couldn't actually change what they believed. Some things you can't convince yourself of no matter how much you want to.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:54 am
by Esternial
It seems most likely that God doesn't exist with what we collectively know, but I'm not opposed to its existence if solid evidence came about.

Currently a lot of "evidence" is things people can't explain, which to me only reinforces the likelihood "God" is just a construct to blame/credit things to that we can't properly explain or process (emotionally, intellectually, etc.).

But hey, to each their own.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:00 am
by The Free Joy State
Page wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I believe they're saying that they believe in God so that they will meet God after they have died.

As for me, I am an equivocal believer. I choose to believe, because I like the idea of there being a higher power. I admit that I may be wrong, and I do not believe that belief is in anyway better to disbelief (in fact, I can't fully explain my own theism -- a highly religious early school may have something to do with it).


Is belief really something you can choose? I can't do that.

If someone hooked you up to a machine that could read your mind and said "If you can truly believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, I'll give you a million dollars." But no matter how much one wants the money, the incentive would make them wish they believed but couldn't actually change what they believed. Some things you can't convince yourself of no matter how much you want to.

I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:01 am
by Uan aa Boa
When discussing these issues it probably helps to consider what it means to exist and what it would mean to be God. Are we asking whether out of all the things there are in the universe one of them satisfies the requirements of God's job description? Or are we asking something else?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:08 am
by Esternial
The Free Joy State wrote:
Page wrote:
Is belief really something you can choose? I can't do that.

If someone hooked you up to a machine that could read your mind and said "If you can truly believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, I'll give you a million dollars." But no matter how much one wants the money, the incentive would make them wish they believed but couldn't actually change what they believed. Some things you can't convince yourself of no matter how much you want to.

I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.

Well, if you go with someone (relatively) less outlandish like aliens, you get the same discussion.

You can never 100% confirm the absence of intelligent alien life.

The main distinction I see is that God is being credited with a much wider array of deeds - mostly because (as I see it) God is a personification of "something we cannot understand".

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:10 am
by Salandriagado
The Free Joy State wrote:
Page wrote:
Is belief really something you can choose? I can't do that.

If someone hooked you up to a machine that could read your mind and said "If you can truly believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, I'll give you a million dollars." But no matter how much one wants the money, the incentive would make them wish they believed but couldn't actually change what they believed. Some things you can't convince yourself of no matter how much you want to.

I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.


The absence of invisible pink unicorns, however, is not. Any non-deist god, additionally, is something that we can confirm the absence of.

And you still haven't answered the actual question: how do you choose to believe something? That's simply not how human cognition works.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:11 am
by The blAAtschApen
Esternial wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.

Well, if you go with someone (relatively) less outlandish like aliens, you get the same discussion.

You can never 100% confirm the absence of intelligent alien life.

The main distinction I see is that God is being credited with a much wider array of deeds - mostly because (as I see it) God is a personification of "something we cannot understand".


Soooo

God is a woman?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:17 am
by Alvecia
The Free Joy State wrote:
Page wrote:
Is belief really something you can choose? I can't do that.

If someone hooked you up to a machine that could read your mind and said "If you can truly believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, I'll give you a million dollars." But no matter how much one wants the money, the incentive would make them wish they believed but couldn't actually change what they believed. Some things you can't convince yourself of no matter how much you want to.

I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.

A Dragon in my Garage would be a better comparison perhaps.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:19 am
by Esternial
The blAAtschApen wrote:
Esternial wrote:Well, if you go with someone (relatively) less outlandish like aliens, you get the same discussion.

You can never 100% confirm the absence of intelligent alien life.

The main distinction I see is that God is being credited with a much wider array of deeds - mostly because (as I see it) God is a personification of "something we cannot understand".


Soooo

God is a woman?

I made that very easy.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:29 am
by The Free Joy State
Salandriagado wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.


The absence of invisible pink unicorns, however, is not. Any non-deist god, additionally, is something that we can confirm the absence of.

And you still haven't answered the actual question: how do you choose to believe something? That's simply not how human cognition works.


Alvecia wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I don't want to debate this at length but there's something of a difference between the concept of a god/s and a pink unicorn.

God/s' existence/nonexistence is unconfirmable. There can never be any firm evidence for or against. If you believe, you choose to have hope, faith, call it what you want. You can say maybe/possibly there is or probably/almost definitely there isn't (or you can go the whole hog and say "there definitely is; my path is the one true path and no-one will ever convince me otherwise" -- but that's their business).

With something that can never be confirmed, that's the best anyone can do.

The absence of pink unicorns is confirmable.

A Dragon in my Garage would be a better comparison perhaps.

I appreciate you haven't got any fresh blood in awhile, but perhaps save it for those who were actually arguing? Okay? I merely expressed a -- not especially vocal -- opinion in a thread that asks for my opinion.

And to answer Salandriagado: I researched multiple religions and beliefs, read extensively, realised that I couldn't be sure and then chose to take a blind leap.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:33 am
by Uan aa Boa
Alvecia wrote:A Dragon in my Garage would be a better comparison perhaps.

Presumably a dragon in your garage would have to be physically present within a small defined volume of space and detectable in the usual ways we use to detect physical objects. I don't think many believers suggest that God is physically present in space in this way.