Is there a God?

[Godular]

I'mma just repeat the edited bit that I threw in a little later for the sake of ease-of-access:

I wouldn't say that God exists as an idea, we would attest that God is a being that meets the parameters of a philosophical person. But I would say that God exists so far beyond human compression that we only really have an idea of what God's true nature actually is.

Any idea about God's nature that we attest, we also attest that is was God who revealed it to us. But that's a separate discussion.

As for the post-I-snipped itself, I think that pretty much settles everything into 'we're gonna have to agree to disagree'. I'm perfectly fine with the mundane world, as I find the mundanity pretty in its own way. Mayhap it is not the same for you, that you choose to look towards other things, but I'm perfectly fine with acknowledging that different people have different preferences.

Though I'll never understand why some people actually like broccoli... fucking disgusting.

Mundane, in the religious sense, doesn't mean boring or trivial just differentiating physical realm vs higher realms like Heaven. I don't trivialize scientific endeavor, quite the contrary I think being a scientist is on par with being a priest. Just as studying a painting gives us insight into the mind of the painter, studying creation gives us insight into the mind of God. In many ways, scientists see the face of God clearer than many priests. It is truly a holy profession.

And broccoli is pretty good, when it's smothered in cheese.

Then our definition of mundane is the same. I prefer the worldly and physical realm. It is pretty.

Also: you... broccoli... you... you... FIEND FROM THE DEPTHS OF COCYTUS!

But really though, broccoli and cheese makes me gag. I acknowledge that folks like broccoli, but I just can’t imagine why. I won’t hold it against them tho.

[Tarsonis]

I wouldn't say that God exists as an idea, we would attest that God is a being that meets the parameters of a philosophical person. But I would say that God exists so far beyond human compression that we only really have an idea of what God's true nature actually is.

Any idea about God's nature that we attest, we also attest that is was God who revealed it to us. But that's a separate discussion.




Mundane, in the religious sense, doesn't mean boring or trivial just differentiating physical realm vs higher realms like Heaven. I don't trivialize scientific endeavor, quite the contrary I think being a scientist is on par with being a priest. Just as studying a painting gives us insight into the mind of the painter, studying creation gives us insight into the mind of God. In many ways, scientists see the face of God clearer than many priests. It is truly a holy profession.

And broccoli is pretty good, when it's smothered in cheese.

Then our definition of mundane is the same. I prefer the worldly and physical realm. It is pretty.

Also: you... broccoli... you... you... FIEND FROM THE DEPTHS OF COCYTUS!

But really though, broccoli and cheese makes me gag. I acknowledge that folks like broccoli, but I just can’t imagine why. I won’t hold it against them tho.

Taste buds are by far the weirdest part of the human body. I mean I can't comprehend how anyone could love scotch, but age it in a sherry cask and I turn into Ron Burgandy.

[Godular]

Then our definition of mundane is the same. I prefer the worldly and physical realm. It is pretty.

Also: you... broccoli... you... you... FIEND FROM THE DEPTHS OF COCYTUS!

But really though, broccoli and cheese makes me gag. I acknowledge that folks like broccoli, but I just can’t imagine why. I won’t hold it against them tho.

Taste buds are by far the weirdest part of the human body. I mean I can't comprehend how anyone could love scotch, but age it in a sherry cask and I turn into Ron Burgandy.

I can barely stomach any alcohol, but that was because of having the most fucked up hangover morning...

It involved a bomb threat, hazmat protocols, and sex toys. And no, I do not exaggerate.

[Kowani]

Taste buds are by far the weirdest part of the human body. I mean I can't comprehend how anyone could love scotch, but age it in a sherry cask and I turn into Ron Burgandy.

I can barely stomach any alcohol, but that was because of having the most fucked up hangover morning...

It involved a bomb threat, hazmat protocols, and sex toys. And no, I do not exaggerate.

I simultaneously do and don't want to know more.

[Godular]

I can barely stomach any alcohol, but that was because of having the most fucked up hangover morning...

It involved a bomb threat, hazmat protocols, and sex toys. And no, I do not exaggerate.

I simultaneously do and don't want to know more.

Also Eddie Gordo in the Tekken series is so OP you can roflstomp anyone even while passing out several times during a match.

[The Alma Mater]

So, to summarise the thread:

"There might be, but we know nothing about him, her, it,them for certain if they do exist"

Well. A matter of faith it remains then.

[New Carthagea]

So, to summarise the thread:

"There might be, but we know nothing about him, her, it,them for certain if they do exist"

Well. A matter of faith it remains then.

This

[Nuroblav]

So, to summarise the thread:

"There might be, but we know nothing about him, her, it,them for certain if they do exist"

Well. A matter of faith it remains then.

Pretty much. While I don't deny the possibility, it's worth considering if we'll ever find out, or even if there is a point in doing so.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

Only if you've limited the realm of existence to the material universe.

I see no reason not to.

What's to say there aren't other universes? It could be one of the solutions to what happens to everything that didn't, and the time travel paradox.

[Godular]

I see no reason not to.

What's to say there aren't other universes? It could be one of the solutions to what happens to everything that didn't, and the time travel paradox.

I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying there is no practical reason to speculate on the matter.

[Tarsonis]

snip double post

[Tarsonis]

Taste buds are by far the weirdest part of the human body. I mean I can't comprehend how anyone could love scotch, but age it in a sherry cask and I turn into Ron Burgandy.

I can barely stomach any alcohol, but that was because of having the most fucked up hangover morning...

It involved a bomb threat, hazmat protocols, and sex toys. And no, I do not exaggerate.

Sounds like a normal Monday morning in the Marines tbh

[Godular]

I can barely stomach any alcohol, but that was because of having the most fucked up hangover morning...

It involved a bomb threat, hazmat protocols, and sex toys. And no, I do not exaggerate.

Sounds like a normal Monday morning in the Marines tbh

It was an army barracks / college dorm / former Nazi-era psych ward

[Neanderthaland]

Kind of? I mean, most things that are going to be "proven wrong" are going to be "proven wrong" like Newton's Laws were "proven wrong."

Which is to say: It still basically works, we just have a slightly better understanding of the physics behind why it works, and we were able to clear up a few problem areas. Most established theories aren't going to be radically overturned, just slightly improved upon.


They didn't really perform any tests, or form any hypotheses, or do any of the other things we would associate with empiricism. So if you're going to call it that, it's worth point out that it's not what I'm talking about at all. And pretty much irrelevant to empiricism today.

And, the "indisputable" nature of it was actually Church mandated. And for a long time a doctorate in medicine could only be obtained with a doctorate in theology.

So I'm not sure if the humors are the best argument against empiricism, but I'll humor you.

I'm not arguing against empiricism, you're missing the point, or at least assuming I'm making a point that someone else has made. I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that empiricism has limits, which prevents it from answering the question: does God exist.

Crucially: this is not true. Empiricism could very easily demonstrate the existence of any God which measurably affected the universe in any way.

It's only Gods that have the extra bit of special-pleading attached to them, that "this God specifically can't be detected by science, and nothing it does can be detected by science" that science has a problem with. Hmm... That's a little wordy. Probably simpler to say that Gods which are deliberately defined as unfalsifiable can't be proven or falsified.

[Sicilian Imperial-Capitalist Empire]

So, to summarise the thread:

"There might be, but we know nothing about him, her, it,them for certain if they do exist"

Well. A matter of faith it remains then.

Basically. I'm open to anything that can reasonably be experimented on with evidence, but with neither I must conclude that there is likely no deity in the sky (and thus remain one of those hated and unforgivable sinful atheists)

So to further summarize:
The main argument for god is "How do you know?" The main argument against god is "How do you know?"

[Ethel mermania]

I'm not arguing against empiricism, you're missing the point, or at least assuming I'm making a point that someone else has made. I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that empiricism has limits, which prevents it from answering the question: does God exist.

Crucially: this is not true. Empiricism could very easily demonstrate the existence of any God which measurably affected the universe in any way.

It's only Gods that have the extra bit of special-pleading attached to them, that "this God specifically can't be detected by science, and nothing it does can be detected by science" that science has a problem with. Hmm... That's a little wordy. Probably simpler to say that Gods which are deliberately defined as unfalsifiable can't be proven or falsified.

The Mets won the 1969 world series, i don't know how much more proof anyone could possibly need.

[Tea Chuggers]

Crucially: this is not true. Empiricism could very easily demonstrate the existence of any God which measurably affected the universe in any way.

It's only Gods that have the extra bit of special-pleading attached to them, that "this God specifically can't be detected by science, and nothing it does can be detected by science" that science has a problem with. Hmm... That's a little wordy. Probably simpler to say that Gods which are deliberately defined as unfalsifiable can't be proven or falsified.

The Mets won the 1969 world series, i don't know how much more proof anyone could possibly need.

On top of that, my buddy didn't burn down north Florida with that lamp that provided more fire hazards than lumens. And it provided a lot of lumens.

[Neanderthaland]

The Mets won the 1969 world series, i don't know how much more proof anyone could possibly need.

On top of that, my buddy didn't burn down north Florida with that lamp that provided more fire hazards than lumens. And it provided a lot of lumens.

Oh don't worry, I'm sure some other disaster will devastate Florida soon enough...

[Great Nortend]

What's to say there aren't other universes? It could be one of the solutions to what happens to everything that didn't, and the time travel paradox.

I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying there is no practical reason to speculate on the matter.

I dunno; eternal damnation or salvation seems like a fairly practical matter.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying there is no practical reason to speculate on the matter.

I dunno; eternal damnation or salvation seems like a fairly practical matter.

Oh my god, my religion is expanding!

[Godular]

I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying there is no practical reason to speculate on the matter.

I dunno; eternal damnation or salvation seems like a fairly practical matter.

Prove it.

[Jedi Council]

I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying there is no practical reason to speculate on the matter.

I dunno; eternal damnation or salvation seems like a fairly practical matter.

Is that Pascals Wager I see? Colour me shocked that that particular brand of nonsense is still circulating.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I dunno; eternal damnation or salvation seems like a fairly practical matter.

Is that Pascals Wager I see? Colour me shocked that that particular brand of nonsense is still circulating.

Pascal failed to consider that the god(s) could just as easily punish people in the afterlife for believing in the god(s) in their lives on Earth. There's no telling how capricious the god(s) are, if there are any.

Seem irrational? When talking about omnipotent, omniscient beings, it's pretty stupid to try and apply our base human ideas to them, like our conception of rationality to them.

[The Alma Mater]

Is that Pascals Wager I see? Colour me shocked that that particular brand of nonsense is still circulating.

Pascal failed to consider that the god(s) could just as easily punish people in the afterlife for believing in the god(s) in their lives on Earth. There's no telling how capricious the god(s) are, if there are any.

He forgot to consider a lot of things. That one could be worshipping the wrong god and that that would piss off the real one far more than simply no believing for instance. Or that god may not like it when people only worship him because they think they will benefit from it instead out of genuine belief/love.

It is why people stopped taking it seriously centuries ago. Literally.

[Kowani]

I’m not saying there aren’t. I’m saying there is no practical reason to speculate on the matter.

I dunno; eternal damnation or salvation seems like a fairly practical matter.

Ah, look, Pascal's Terrible Gambling Strategy.