Staredit Network

I always find times when i'm wrong and i do admit them right away. Infact, post #118 i've admitted that i was wrong.

But hey man, again u're making too big of a fuss out of this... It's not like it matters does it.

Ya, I kinda am. But don't sweat it, I ain't trying to break your balls. Let's get back onto topic.

You


Confusion clarified, and no you're not a dumbass. (Dumb=mute, which means not to speak . I hope no human is a dumbass....)At least i don't think so.


Yeah you were wrong basing it off facts, but who's keeping count?

P.S. On topic is a good idea....

Dumb ass = mute donkey. I don't see what's to talk about. This topic's intent is obviously less of a discussion then it is a poll.

Apparently, we just get off topic too much

More less, but, here's my "theory" i just made up, back a bit to the "expanding into nothing" thing that was being discussed on page 2, this topic is expanding into nothing, it gets larger in an empty space, for more replys to be held, contributing, until a god, like our 2 gods here at sen, do somethong about it, if they wish. We do something for them, but even though we do not know what we do for them, its good.

Now, my little translation:

the universe is expanding into nothing, it gets larger into an empty space, as everything is created, it will contribute to something, until, something, like what we reffer to as god, does something about it, if they wish, we must accompish a mission that we do not know.

However, this half will drift away from the sen thing, since, if we expand into nothing, it will be nothing, and it becomes like....an endless cycle, as another universe is created inside of nothing, which will be our universe.

BTW, I believe in god, but, I believe we are god, we are the leaders, but we reffer to god as us, not taking up the task, to be god, and that is why we expand into nothingness, until something is fit to complete, "the task".

hmmmm.....so, i suppose what I'm saying is, there isn't a god, but there's something there. We are the gods of here, and somehting is something, not like the "void" we grow into. I leave that, to that. And that's that .

Well, that was confusing, wasn't it? but, if you can understand what im trying to say, it a reletively acceptable but unstable theory.

I'm confused on your thing here, simply because...it's not direct enough. I can take this 2 diff ways right now. So the one I'm guessing is you're trying to say that, it's all about opinions? Ya, that's kinda true. Many things are about opinions, but wether we should logically (NOT legally) assume there is a god or not, is not an opinion. (Unless you want to classify logic as opinions)

I really think that was just a load of babbling that has no proof Mostly about "expanding into nothingness until something is fit to complete, 'the task'"

Alpha I don't think logic can be proof that a god can exist or not exist, because we as humans created logic through our experiences and our thinking processes. Maybe the concept of god is something we can't apply logic to.

I also think this topic is dying and not really getting anywhere anymore.

Logic can be applied to ANYTHING. You'll have to sit pretty long to find a counter example.

I would have to say that you're wrong, because you can use logic (Not it ALONE of course. We are using proof, and that proof is that there religious side has no proof. AKA Burden of Proof) to prove that god does or does not exist right now.

Here is my hypothesis:

The burden of proof lies on the religious side. (All we have to do is prove through logic that it does, then if the religious has nothing to use as proof except faith (which can be applied to anything, so that don't really count) then their opinion doesn't really matter UNTIL they can prove that they're right.) They will always have an opinion on it of course, because there's that slight chance we might all be wrong. (Again, this can be applied to ANYTHING if you think about it) So if God gets mad at us because we used logic to prove that he is either...
A- Doesn't care
B- Isn't there
C- Is having fun making us fight each other
D- Is dead
E- Has some really messed up faith testing rules
G- Made a pact with the devil or w/e, so neither can interfere.
(There might be more, But I'm pretty sure you all can find the rest if there are any)
Then would he really condem me to hell? I mean, seriously. God would be happy to know that a creature he created didn't fall for the fake religious both he and man made. Or even the religions that his rival Satan made.

My theory is highly arrogant, but that's the bottom line. And you guys throw in that whole believe what you want thing, but if you want to step up to the plate, and try to solve this with me. Let's go. Let's prove religion is correct/wrong with logic. What I just said may be wrong, and it may be right. 1st let's see if that hypothesis can be used, or we could just get a new one or simply adjust it. (Like I said, this is highly arrogant)

But allow me to make this clear. We can NOT make it UNDENIABLY A FACT, LIKE BY A LAW YOU MUST BELIEVE X. I'm arrogant, but I'm not THAT arrogant.

Use logic to prove god does or does not exist.

Use logic to express the bible? Sure there are plenty of logical explanations, but they're also illogical to people without faith "in God". Logic would state, that since dying feels so wrojng it must not be right, maybe we were meant to never die?(Top Carnovores ). Logic would also say that us never dying would be a illogical event against the laws of our world, these two don't coexist. So using only logic to prove something that takes faith can't be done. Faith has to be a factor, and if u can use only logic, then the point you are trying to make can be easily questioned, which makes many religous groups look foolish.

And you said solve this with me, we can't solve it, we can only have different based opinions about it. Until Judgement day comes, or we learn to time travel(yeah right..) we can not solve anything, because solving means we have come to a fact of evidence that is the outcome. Now if you hate the idea of god, it is easy to use logic to your advantage and question things, but if you believe in god, strongly enough, it is easy to point out reasons of his/its' existance. And then there are those who have their own ideas, or dont care. That is truth, the only solution for everyone.


Ok your point? Still means ass which does not talk, btw my description was a joke if you were trying to correct someone.


1st of all to prove a point to yourself...
2nd You defenitely are not contributing anything, every few posts(that i see) you just complain about something, is the topic too big for you? You too scared to voice an opinion? If not then do so, if you wanna complain some more, don't waste space on a post.




Eh? It is an opinion, it may be mutilated, molted, mutated, discarded, worshipped, or rivaled, but it is an opinion of your standpoint. You can make logic out of whatever you want, which is why logic requires belief or faith, a standpoint.

Say a kid gets ran over while playing with a ball. Logically you will assume it was:
1)Roadrage
2)Drunkdriving
3)Someone on a cell phone(Btw we should have a thread on this)
4)Underaged driver.
These logical conclusions allow you to round up(if you're an authority) a group of people all fitting these assumptions. The Teenager going for a joy ride with his buddies(already going to be fined..) A very Sober looking man as he gets out his car witnessing the event, "Woah dude what happened here?*stumbles*" The lady on her Cell phone who kept driving cuz she didnt even see the kid in the first place. And the guy angry from work because his boss is an asshole.

Now all of these logical answers for nearby drivers are not bound to be the solution. As it ends up, you find out the person who hit the child was driving a Lexus, no one on your grouped together list fits this description, they are all let go free(except for those who already committed crimes). Now the only way to know the truth is to witness it through a fourth or fifth dimensional standpoint, or to wait for someone to comeout and confess, or acknowledge what has happened.

This example is just so show that Logic on anything can't always prove facts. Although logic most defenitely can be used for anything tangible(i love that word) it can't be helpful for solutions to intagible things. So as i said, our best bet on a solution is truth, the only facts we know, and the factors of which we can make our own opinion. But of course, this an opinion as well, so there's no guarantee for it to be correct, and you don't have to like it!

P.S. Meant to add in how Faith and logic coexist and don't but i got carried away cuz i saw a kid get hit by a car, sorry.

This really doesn't have much to do with what's being talked about right but here's something interesting we read in English class:

There's this play called "Inherit the Wind" which is about a trial in which it's basically creationism vs religion. Evolution/darwism vs Christianity. It's based on the Scopes Monkey Trials. The townspeople whom were christians, were over zealous christians. They deny all logic, they were basically denied the right to think outside of their own christian world (aka the Bible); they even contort some aspects of christianity. For instance there's this one part where a reverend chants out to God to strike a lightning bolt down upon the heretic, which was Berne Cates the teacher who taught evolution and got arrested. They were completing ignoring the fact that they must forgive sinners and not damn them. Drummond, who was an agnostic and trying to defend Cates) tried to refute many things in the Bible by taking things upon logical stances. For instance he was saying that in the Bible it says that Joshua stopped the sun from moving and it stayed still. Brady (who was the christian advocate and on the prosecution's side) stumped upon this question because he, like most christians back then, could not think logically and used the Bible as their only source of knowledge. Drummond brings up the point that if this happened as what was said, then the earth would've gone out of orbit or something bad like that. Brady's only response to that is just that God can work outside of what's possible. And after almost succumbing to Drummonds relentless attacks on the christian belief, Brady gets a little bit out of his mind and brings up a point where God speaks to him and tells him to disobey the teachings of Darwin. This led to him digging himself into a trap and eventually losing that one argument (but not the case). And after the case was over, he died from a busted belly. Poor Brady, if only he had learned to accept some logic...

So people back then made a terrible mistake in denying pretty much all logic just because it wasn't in the Bible. And every since then, some non believers have began stereotyping us religious people as deniers of all logic (which is a fallacy). I hope noone is like that now

I don't deny logic, it's great for explaining and uses it in human things we do everyday, especially things we made up and created. But I just don't think that logic might be the way the universe works and that it can be applied to EVERYTHING. We created logic with our minds, but I think as we gain more knowledge our thinking and logic will change too.

You are right, Logic can not do it alone. They'll have to be another source of proof.
I was trying to use burden of proof through deductive reasoning, but I now see it's slightly inductive.

Now, I have a question...
What do we need to use to prove god does/doesn't exist? Like, actual proof. Go into heaven? wait for judgement day? (What year is that anyways?) See god come down and say,

"Hey, look. See me? See the 200,000ft guy? I'm god. Stop fighting. I'm gonna make sure you're guys' guardian angels stop you from doing stupid shit. Last thing I want is more people in hell."

I mean, what proof must we find? Is there any proof that we can find? Will there ever be? Are we to just keep waiting for proof for billions of years, while the entire god concept interferes with everyone else's opinions on diff subjects/controversies? This entire concept is just like me saying, Orange juice cures cancer no matter what. Just as long as you BELIEVE it does. I'll never be proven wrong, but I could still have people think I'm right, (I HIGHLY doubt that) and I can have this justify everything I say, so it makes more sense to them. And this isn't the only example I can use. I can easily come up with 10 of em, anyone in here can. (Hopefully) So, are we to just sit here, and let the orange juice guy still have an opinion. Even though, if you prove him wrong 100%, he could still use faith has a scapegoat. That's why I don't consider faith as a factor when it comes to "Proof".

So much text to read... Should have kept up with topic
Is there a printer friendly version?

Umm, your example with orange juice can be prove wrong/right. Through extensive tests and such, it CAN be because it's something we have easily available to us to study. Something like God cannot be observed or tested.

Also, the part about right now we can't prove he exists and your opinion isn't wrong is basically saying that everyone's opinion is valid whether they are religious or not. It's just that some people thing that they other views are inferior and such when theres no proof. If there isn't a straight answer then people do have opinions about it and no one is wrong. Duh

The reason why you can't prove me wrong is because of faith. I have FAITH that it can heal people. It's all wether or not that person truly believes the orange juice can heal them or not. And that your science is wrong, because you can not comprehend the true soul power that lies inside orange juice.

There is a straight answer to wether there is a god or not. We're just too ignorant to know, that's all. (It's not like we're debating over what band is the best or anything)

We are too ignorant because we don't have the means to actually find out. Orange juice is something everyone has access too and is very common and we can actually use science to prove whether it heals or doesn't.

You're not getting my point. It's the soul power (Stuff we don't have the science to detect, and may never will) inside the orange juice that heals people. AND that you must have pure FAITH into the healing powers of the orange juice in order for it to work. If it doesn't work for you, then that just simply means you did not have pure faith in the orange juice.

Sigh if you could say that FOR ANYTHING, and nothing would be proven. It's pointless, because with a view like that, no matter how much proof you have people like that will never accept it. Just like evolution

Exactly. That's my whole point. That's why people can't use faith as a reason to believe in something.

I knew that you were getting at, but theres no point in pointing that out, we just ignore the people who put blind faith into something They have no other reasoning so therefore shouldn't be paid any attention.

Just to clarify something, do you or do not agree that, Faith should count as proof? Just to make sure we're on the same page or not.

I don't agree it should be used as proof, its just that bringing that longwinded example was pointless because it's just annoying

Ya, I agree. It was rather annoying/long.

(Back on the main topic now)

Since religion was never proven to be true in the 1st place, (and that it is a REALLY large claim) I firmly believe right now that the burden of truth lies on their side. And if it somehow does, would it be enough logical proof to assume there is no god, until more evidence is provided? (Which may or may never happen)