Is god real?

[Unhealthy2]

In other words: We can't tell anyway, so there's absolutely no point in wasting our time discussing it.

So because we can't be absolutely totally 100% certain, there's no point discussing anything? The fact that we could become more certain of something isn't good enough to give merit to discussions? We must be capable of absolute certainty or all pursuit of knowledge is completely without merit?

[The Grand World Order]

What if a wormhole opens in front of it?

Then you shouldn't be shooting in the LHC in the first place.

The chances of a wormhole opening there is low. Its a possibility, but of low probability.

It is a possibility. Therefore, yes, it IS possible.

See, this debate is, "Is God real?"

Many people specifically say, no, he is not real, and that is a FACT. 100%, no chance of him existing. Yet, as far as we know, there are possibilities, therefore you cannot say, no, he doesn't exist- you can state that you believe he doesn't, but you cannot actually state that he doesn't and confirm that as a fact.

[Unhealthy2]

And the only theory I have is that no one here knows anything, nor can claim too.

Only if you unreasonably demand that something must be completely and absolutely certain in order to count as knowledge. If you're 99.9999999999999999999874% certain of something, it's not knowledge?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

The point I'm trying to make is that there more possibilites than God doesn't exist or HE(defined as a divine being) does exist.

Only because you're playing equivocation games with the word "god," redefining it throughout your argument but acting as if you're proving something.

Maybe God is just an energy flow. Completely unthinking and unfeeling. Maybe He is simply the Way. And as long as no one actually knows what He is, I can play with the word all I want.

[Unhealthy2]

Many people specifically say, no, he is not real, and that is a FACT. 100%, no chance of him existing. Yet, as far as we know, there are possibilities, therefore you cannot say, no, he doesn't exist- you can state that you believe he doesn't, but you cannot actually state that he doesn't and confirm that as a fact.

Yet again, for the third fucking time, why is it all or nothing? Why are 100% certainty and complete uncertainty the only possibilities? I mean, by this standard, the fact that you're sitting at a computer right now isn't a fact.

[The Grand World Order]

And for believing in him, what are we losing, should the wager be lost?

There could be a god that punishes believers and rewards atheists. There could be a god that punishes people for believing in the wrong religion. Plus, most religions aren't just you believe and that's it. Most demand something from you, money, time, etc.

And if we are wrong, are we really losing anything? Is happiness, the belief that there is an afterlife for us, something that convinces us that there's something good, not worth the time/money? It's peace of mind, almost. Insurance, if you will.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

And the only theory I have is that no one here knows anything, nor can claim too.

Only if you unreasonably demand that something must be completely and absolutely certain in order to count as knowledge. If you're 99.9999999999999999999874% certain of something, it's not knowledge?

No, it's not. I can be 99.9999999999999999999874% sure God exists, but it doesn't mean I know or am even neccesarily right. It doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

[Unhealthy2]

Maybe God is just an energy flow. Completely unthinking and unfeeling. Maybe He is simply the Way. And as long as no one actually knows what He is, I can play with the word all I want.

Except none of this proves anything except that you can change the definition of a word. Shuffling definitions around doesn't actually change reality, it just changes notation. Nothing is telling you that you can't redefine "coffee mug" to mean "turnip." But by doing so, ou don't suddenly turn a device for holding coffee into a ground-based vegetable.

[Rokartian States]

Could you, perhaps, name some of these possibilities?

Gravity, wind, other atmospheric effects?

Pretty sure neither gravity nor wind on Earth can cause a bullet to deviate significantly from its course.

Just because it doesn't happen here on Earth doesn't mean it's not something that could very well happen somewhere else in the universe.

I had assumed that we were speaking of firing a bullet on Earth, that is, at a specific target on the ground.

Suppose you had the ability to fire a bullet, and it skimmed the event horizon of a black hole while on its way towards something else? And then, the next bullet, assuming you had the firearm perfectly in place after the shot and could make sure the condition was the same somehow, fails to hit the event horizon?

Yes, that's certainly possible. I, however, would say that the reason for the failure of the prediction that the bullet would continue on its path undisturbed is based upon a lack of information, not an infinite amount of possibilities.

[The Grand World Order]

Many people specifically say, no, he is not real, and that is a FACT. 100%, no chance of him existing. Yet, as far as we know, there are possibilities, therefore you cannot say, no, he doesn't exist- you can state that you believe he doesn't, but you cannot actually state that he doesn't and confirm that as a fact.

Yet again, for the third fucking time, why is it all or nothing? Why are 100% certainty and complete uncertainty the only possibilities? I mean, by this standard, the fact that you're sitting at a computer right now isn't a fact.

There is 1, and there is 0. There is fact, and there is false. George Boole went over this quite a while ago.

People have been claiming that boolean God = 0; I'm stating this cannot be stated for fact, and that it is speculation. At the same time, I cannot prove to you that boolean God = 1; however, I do believe God = 1.

Also, the thread itself is asking a question none of us can answer. It is asking for a boolean value of God, which we cannot give.

[Unhealthy2]

And if we are wrong, are we really losing anything?

If god punishes you for choosing the wrong belief, then hell yeah you're losing out.

Is happiness, the belief that there is an afterlife for us, something that convinces us that there's something good, not worth the time/money?

It might be worth the money, but I have a principle that it is always, in every circumstance, wrong to believe a falsehood, no matter how much it makes you feel better. God is very unlikely. I cannot, in good conscience, believe something just for the sake of emotional comfort.

[Zeth Rekia]

Are smurfs real?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Many people specifically say, no, he is not real, and that is a FACT. 100%, no chance of him existing. Yet, as far as we know, there are possibilities, therefore you cannot say, no, he doesn't exist- you can state that you believe he doesn't, but you cannot actually state that he doesn't and confirm that as a fact.

Yet again, for the third fucking time, why is it all or nothing? Why are 100% certainty and complete uncertainty the only possibilities? I mean, by this standard, the fact that you're sitting at a computer right now isn't a fact.

Hell, by this standard, he could be doing more than one thing in more than one place, infinitely. And they are the possibilites given because when all is said and done, either you know something or you don't. And even that doesn't mean you're right.

[The Grand World Order]

It might be worth the money, but I have a principle that it is always, in every circumstance, wrong to believe a falsehood, no matter how much it makes you feel better. God is very unlikely. I cannot, in good conscience, believe something just for the sake of emotional comfort.

Unlikely. Good.

My issue is not with claims of him being unlikely- that can be discussed until kingdom come. It's when one claims he is, without a doubt, without a possibility of another outcome, false, that I am very much against their claims.

[Nort Eurasia]

Are smurfs real?

Of course. GWO shouldn't have any problem believing in this.

[Unhealthy2]

There is 1, and there is 0. There is fact, and there is false. George Boole went over this quite a while ago.

A fact is a bit more than a true statement. You also have to know something for it to be a fact. Since you seem to think that if you aren't 100% certain than you don't know something, then the truth is that, by your definition, there are no facts outside of mathematics. That you have hands isn't a fact, because you can't be absolutely certain of it. That you're using a computer right now isn't a fact, because you can't prove it absolutely.

Sure, you can use this metric, but it's not very useful for describing reality. It's good for pure mathematics, but when it comes to any sort of empirical work, this measure is not useful. Fuzzy logic is more useful, and all statements in fuzzy logic can be translated into binary logic.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Maybe God is just an energy flow. Completely unthinking and unfeeling. Maybe He is simply the Way. And as long as no one actually knows what He is, I can play with the word all I want.

Except none of this proves anything except that you can change the definition of a word. Shuffling definitions around doesn't actually change reality, it just changes notation. Nothing is telling you that you can't redefine "coffee mug" to mean "turnip." But by doing so, ou don't suddenly turn a device for holding coffee into a ground-based vegetable.

Again, not claiming that any of this changes anything. In all liklihood there is a definite reality. But as mere humans we cannot distinguish between truth and perception. We can strive too, we can inch closer and closer, but we will never reach it. Much like integration theory. It is not our province to know, only to make do with what we have availible to us.

[The Grand World Order]

Are smurfs real?

Of course. GWO shouldn't have any problem believing in this.

As far as I know, there could be life forms on some other world that would very well fit our definition of "smurf."

[Unhealthy2]

either you know something or you don't. And even that doesn't mean you're right.

Not a very useful method. Fuzzy logic is better for empiricism. That being said, if you want to use binary logic to describe knowledge, then knowing something DOES necessarily mean that you're right, so you're first and second statements contradict. In fuzzy logic, knowing something doesn't guarantee correctness, but that's because fuzzy logic knowledge does not require absolute certainty.

[Desperate Measures]

I just wondered if God is circumcised. I think I'm on to something here because I can think of a dozen new questions based on that.

[Nazistisches Reich]

my guess how this is going to turn out
phase one: people state opinions
phase two:arguments begin
phase three: any proof for either side is frogotten as both sides hurl insults at each other
phase four: thread is locked

Yep.

God hasn't been proven. Thus, in the grand old fashion of Science, my answer would have to be "I dunno. Need more data." I am on on the fence between Deism and Agnosticism.

Well you could be an Athiest Agnostic which means you do not beleive in god but do not know there is one

[The Murtunian Tribes]

either you know something or you don't. And even that doesn't mean you're right.

Not a very useful method. Fuzzy logic is better for empiricism. That being said, if you want to use binary logic to describe knowledge, then knowing something DOES necessarily mean that you're right, so you're first and second statements contradict. In fuzzy logic, knowing something doesn't guarantee correctness, but that's because fuzzy logic knowledge does not require absolute certainty.

If it does not require absolute certainty, then how do you claim that God does not exist?

[Nort Eurasia]

Not a very useful method. Fuzzy logic is better for empiricism. That being said, if you want to use binary logic to describe knowledge, then knowing something DOES necessarily mean that you're right, so you're first and second statements contradict. In fuzzy logic, knowing something doesn't guarantee correctness, but that's because fuzzy logic knowledge does not require absolute certainty.

If it does not require absolute certainty, then how do you claim that God does not exist?

How can you claim that he may or may not exist?

[The Grand World Order]

How can you claim that he may or may not exist?

You can't. You can only claim what you believe.

[Unhealthy2]

If it does not require absolute certainty, then how do you claim that God does not exist?

I don't. I claim that it is infinitesimal in probability. Thus, for absolutely any practical measure, it's not true. Strictly speaking, this isn't an absolute proof, but it's as close as one can get to proof without being proof.