Is god real?

[Jagalonia]

Of course I'm real, what makes you think I'm not?

Pfft....Stupid mortals...

Indeed, how moronic of them. Is that you Allah? I haven't seen you in years!

Actualy, I'm the flying spaghetti monster. Thank you for recognizing your one true god....jerk.

[Luciratus]

Indeed, how moronic of them. Is that you Allah? I haven't seen you in years!

Actualy, I'm the flying spaghetti monster. Thank you for recognizing your one true god....jerk.

Fuck! Sorry, spegghi. Do you remember me? I am Sparkles the Pink Unicorn.

[New Heliopolis]

It is indeed. Specifically, the form that can apply in such nonrandom cases.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_Inference



And yes, I'm the inference and the interpretation are different, but the inference is, from what I"ve read, the only form of inference that follows that interpretation.

So what's your argument?

That the Bayesian inference supports whatever conclusion is grouped off on its own by subsets in cases of this much generality. For example, if I were to espouse the existence of a specific god or pantheon, with absolutely clear doctrine, interpretation, etc., as long as said doctrine doesn't create a derived impossibility scenario, I could actually "prove" the existence of almost anything I wanted. After all, there would always be an infinite number of alternatives to that thing.

[Jagalonia]

Actualy, I'm the flying spaghetti monster. Thank you for recognizing your one true god....jerk.

Fuck! Sorry, spegghi. Do you remember me? I am Sparkles the Pink Unicorn.

I might....>.>

[Unhealthy2]

That the Bayesian inference supports whatever conclusion is grouped off on its own by subsets in cases of this much generality. For example, if I were to espouse the existence of a specific god or pantheon, with absolutely clear doctrine, interpretation, etc., as long as said doctrine doesn't create a derived impossibility scenario, I could actually "prove" the existence of almost anything I wanted. After all, there would always be an infinite number of alternatives to that thing.

No, it doesn't. You have to actually use measure theory legitimately and know what you're talking about. Not all distributions are uniform. As I said several times already, THE UNIFORMITY OF THE FUNCTION IS IMPORTANT to my argument.

[Luciratus]

Fuck! Sorry, spegghi. Do you remember me? I am Sparkles the Pink Unicorn.

I might....>.>

You should. Remember, we were at Shiva's party together. You know, the one where Pavarti and Odin were getting it on.

[Jagalonia]

I might....>.>

You should. Remember, we were at Shiva's party together. You know, the one where Pavarti and Odin were getting it on.

Oh yeah.....Somone tried to eat me.......

[New Heliopolis]

That the Bayesian inference supports whatever conclusion is grouped off on its own by subsets in cases of this much generality. For example, if I were to espouse the existence of a specific god or pantheon, with absolutely clear doctrine, interpretation, etc., as long as said doctrine doesn't create a derived impossibility scenario, I could actually "prove" the existence of almost anything I wanted. After all, there would always be an infinite number of alternatives to that thing.

No, it doesn't. You have to actually use measure theory legitimately and know what you're talking about. Not all distributions are uniform. As I said several times already, THE UNIFORMITY OF THE FUNCTION IS IMPORTANT to my argument.

Not once, actually, in response to this.

Anyhow, what you were doing with it was essentially the same thing--the specifics were just implied. Instead of having to state a specific doctrine, you simply let it be implied by the incredibly obvious. The same with the other parts.

Or, if that doesn't work for you, 4, 16, and 64 do belong to the set of even numbers, but they also belong to the set of square numbers.

In fact...there are more subsets than "god" versus "no god", which makes things more interesting...

[Luciratus]

You should. Remember, we were at Shiva's party together. You know, the one where Pavarti and Odin were getting it on.

Oh yeah.....Somone tried to eat me.......

Ba'al. He always does shit like that. I am glad Jehovah's been beating up on him. He is so irkesome.

[Unhealthy2]

Anyhow, what you were doing with it was essentially the same thing--the specifics were just implied. Instead of having to state a specific doctrine, you simply let it be implied by the incredibly obvious. The same with the other parts.

What?

Or, if that doesn't work for you, 4, 16, and 64 do belong to the set of even numbers, but they also belong to the set of square numbers.

So?

[Iohann]

Oh yeah.....Somone tried to eat me.......

Ba'al. He always does shit like that. I am glad Jehovah's been beating up on him. He is so irkesome.

Yeah, well, Jehovah's kid's been kinda getting in the way of his "party time." Look how whipped he is now. He used to be cool... now he's all "peace and understanding" hippie stuff.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Atheism is the absence of belief, and therefore cannot be a religion, which is an organisation of like-minded believers.

Atheism is the belief there is no God. Subtle but very important difference. As you cannot logically disprove the existence of God, believing He doesn't exist is, in fact, an act of faith.

[Dyakovo]

Atheism is the belief there is no God.

Wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity or deities.

[Aggicificicerous]

Atheism is the absence of belief, and therefore cannot be a religion, which is an organisation of like-minded believers.

Atheism is the belief there is no God. Subtle but very important difference. As you cannot logically disprove the existence of God, believing He doesn't exist is, in fact, an act of faith.

The only people trying to insist that atheism is the belief that god does not exist are the ones trying to stick atheists and theists in the same camp. But atheism is the lack of faith in a god. It's that simple. I have no need to believe one way or the other.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Atheism is the belief there is no God. Subtle but very important difference. As you cannot logically disprove the existence of God, believing He doesn't exist is, in fact, an act of faith.

The only people trying to insist that atheism is the belief that god does not exist are the ones trying to stick atheists and theists in the same camp. But atheism is the lack of faith in a god. It's that simple. I have no need to believe one way or the other.

Actually what you are decribing is agnosticism, which being undecided. Having no definitive belief in God's existence or non-existence, it can't be called a religion. Atheism is a definitive belief in the non-existence of God, which requires a leap of faith, although admittedly that leap is much smaller than for those that do believe.

[Dyakovo]

The only people trying to insist that atheism is the belief that god does not exist are the ones trying to stick atheists and theists in the same camp. But atheism is the lack of faith in a god. It's that simple. I have no need to believe one way or the other.

Actually what you are decribing is agnosticism, which being undecided. Having no definitive belief in God's existence or non-existence, it can't be called a religion. Atheism is a definitive belief in the non-existence of God, which requires a leap of faith, although admittedly that leap is much smaller than for those that do believe.

No, what he is describing is implicit atheism. Agnosticism is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of knowledge.

[Aggicificicerous]

Actually what you are decribing is agnosticism, which being undecided. Having no definitive belief in God's existence or non-existence, it can't be called a religion. Atheism is a definitive belief in the non-existence of God, which requires a leap of faith, although admittedly that leap is much smaller than for those that do believe.

No, what he is describing is implicit atheism. Agnosticism is not a statement of belief, it is a statement of knowledge.

Isn't an implicit atheist someone who does not believe in god because he or she has never heard of or does not understand the concept of god? I should have been a bit more detailed and said that I was describing agnostic atheism (which I'm fairly sure most atheists are).

[Syvorji]

In my humble opinion, God is both real and imaginary. How so? God exists in different forms and names, like Allah, for example, and Jesus can exist in many other forms, like for example, Muhammad in Islam, Buddha in Buddhism and so on and so forth. There is more than one religion on earth, even shamanism exists. As so, there are many different sects of one religion, so even if you are a Christian, you could be a Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and so on, and same goes with Islam, Shi'a, Sunni and etc... And even then, you can believe in any religion, because how would you feel if everyone, even you were forced to attend Mass? (I am looking at you, Queen Mary of England) And if you didn't, you got sent to the Tower? That could oppress, and yet, atheists say there is no God, and agnostics haven't decided yet. God is just that. He is god, in different names, different functions and so on. It is easy to convert, but not everyone is Christian. In the end, it is up to the person, whether if s/he wants to follow a religion, or not, and if so, which one.

To sum it up, I'm neutral, or in your terms, undecided.

Jesus, Muhammed, and Sidartha Guatama were all historical people. They cannot be the same individual if they are the distinct founders of different religions. However, I agree with your statement that there are multiple views on what deity or deities exists, but one few must be correct. Objectivism is a bitch like that.

Actually, God and his prophets are the same person, but with different identities and histories, to make them seem different. The reason was because that God dispersed everyone from the Tower of Babel, confusing their languages AND their cultures. Seriously, if you don't believe, read the Talmud sometime.

[Luciratus]

Jesus, Muhammed, and Sidartha Guatama were all historical people. They cannot be the same individual if they are the distinct founders of different religions. However, I agree with your statement that there are multiple views on what deity or deities exists, but one few must be correct. Objectivism is a bitch like that.

Actually, God and his prophets are the same person, but with different identities and histories, to make them seem different. The reason was because that God dispersed everyone from the Tower of Babel, confusing their languages AND their cultures. Seriously, if you don't believe, read the Talmud sometime.

My father is Jewish. However, I must disagree that all prophets are a deity in disguise. Various religions have vastly different ideas and world views. Similarly, I believe in a deity as a creator and nothing more. What demonstrates the existence of a loving god? I view it as merely a detached creator, leaving us to our own devices.

[Jagalonia]

Actually, God and his prophets are the same person, but with different identities and histories, to make them seem different. The reason was because that God dispersed everyone from the Tower of Babel, confusing their languages AND their cultures. Seriously, if you don't believe, read the Talmud sometime.

My father is Jewish. However, I must disagree that all prophets are a deity in disguise. Various religions have vastly different ideas and world views. Similarly, I believe in a deity as a creator and nothing more. What demonstrates the existence of a loving god? I view it as merely a detached creator, leaving us to our own devices.

Like some child's 5th grade science experiment

[Luciratus]

My father is Jewish. However, I must disagree that all prophets are a deity in disguise. Various religions have vastly different ideas and world views. Similarly, I believe in a deity as a creator and nothing more. What demonstrates the existence of a loving god? I view it as merely a detached creator, leaving us to our own devices.

Like some child's 5th grade science experiment

Indeed. Honestly, if I was allowed to create something, it would be so much better. Unfortunately, every deity hates pink unicorns. Racism is horrible.

[FREEaquaticdancelesson]

My favorite theory on God is that Earth is really just a reality tv show for aliens, and we need to fight wars and kill each other for ratings.

Thanks southpark!

[Luciratus]

My favorite theory on God is that Earth is really just a reality tv show for aliens, and we need to fight wars and kill each other for ratings.

Thanks southpark!

Well, we are relatively moronic and arrogant at times. Likewise, your theory does merit a degree of plausability. Do you want to start a cult?

[New Hampshyre]

The first thing that need determined before you can answer the question "is god real?" is what god you're talking about. Zeus? The Christian God, and if so what version? A Deist God?

I'm going to answer the question posed while under the assumption that you mean to address the typical judeo-christian God which is described as a being of pure goodness that created everything in the universe and is perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient.

This God does not and cannot exist. We know this for the same reason that we know that no where in all of the universe does a square circle exist. We can know it does not exist, even without having access to the entire universe, because we know that contradictions cannot exist. The above described God cannot exist because of the following contradictions:

1: Evil not come from something that is purely good, and so if all the universe came from God, so did the evil in the universe.

2: An omnipotent being cannot be omniscient. If God is omniscient then he must know what is going to happen tomorrow. If he knows what is going to happen tomorrow then he cannot change what is going to happen tomorrow. An omnipotent God, by definition, can change anything. Therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient.

3: An omnipotent being cannot be purely good or evil since purely good and evil beings cannot create their reverse aspects.

4: An eternally perfect being cannot have created the universe. If a being is perfect then it is complete and is in need of nothing and never makes anything unnecessary. Therefore a perfect and thus complete being would have no need to make the universe, nor would it do anything unnecessary like make universes that serve no purpose.

Therefore the Judeo-Christian God does not exist.

It is vaguely possible for much less specifically described "gods" to possibly exist, but without the absolute qualities described above it would more accurate to list them as highly advanced or powerful beings rather than being gods.

[Demen]

Religion is but a pissing contest between close-minded intellectuals, and ignorant theists basing their knowledge on an unreliable source.