Vatican says aliens could exist

[Demosthenes11]

lol you only put it there because that's what you believe. It changes depending on who is looking at it. Your opinion here is not fact

[quannum]

lol you only put it there because that's what you believe. It changes depending on who is looking at it. Your opinion here is not fact

not rly.
If you don't have a problem with his 5 definitions, then that is where god goes.
You don't have evidence of god(s), you have faith in such. It's why proofs for or against are a silly idea in the first place.

[Blarg]

lol you only put it there because that's what you believe. It changes depending on who is looking at it. Your opinion here is not fact

not rly.
If you don't have a problem with his 5 definitions, then that is where god goes.
You don't have evidence of god(s), you have faith in such. It's why proofs for or against are a silly idea in the first place.

Proofs are really only silly for a god that doesn't interfere with our universe. But when you make claims about what your god does and doesn't do and what properties it has then you are more able to make proofs showing that version of a god is unlikely or whatever.

[Kaelan]

Kaelan said God is logically impossible because you always have to redefine it, therefore, it can't exist since there is no definition.
My counter argument was that a god located at the infinity or at the beginning wouldnt have to be redefined everytime.

That's not exactly what I meant.

You could, as people often do, re-define "God" every time an argument proves that your previous definition of God is logically impossible, but then you run into another problem. If you constantly re-define God every time a problematic argument shows up, you're eventually going to be forced to either: A) Take away so much from your God idea that it eventually ends up necessarily being "downgraded" into something like a deist God (in other words, "that which created the Universe", but that is still limited in several ways) or B) End up with something not worth calling God (taking God to be, by definition, "a being worthy of being worshipped").

I'm not saying that God is impossible because it's impossible to define it, I'm saying that the only logically valid definition of God would be very far away from what most people think of God, something like a Pantheistic God or Spinoza's God (which is why I mention earlier the deist God). If you want, you can believe in that God with no problem - that's more or less what people like Einstein, Stephen Hawkins and such meant when they used the word "God" (which they did, a lot, and most uneducated religious people waste no time is grossly misunderstanding). This God is fine - it's the theist God - the God that not only knows what you are doing but cares about it, and cares about what you dress, what you eat, who you fuck, when you work, that performs miracles - that God is what makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

My guess is it's probably just semantics getting in the way here: I think we agree on the same point, we're just using different wording.

As for my own personal belief I am agnostic. I just thought I would throw that idea out there because when discussing the existence of a god or god one must accept the fact that there will be undefinable terms that will create the foundation for other arguments.

The problem is not really about undefinable terms. It's more about already defined terms that can be logically proved impossible based on how those terms were defined, usually because of some sort of contradiction that crops up at one point or another. Like having a square circle or a four sided triangle (which is exactly why I mentioned the problem with evil before, although it seems to have been conveniently skipped by people on the other side of the discussion, since it's a perfect example of the kind of problems I'm talking about, though definitely not the only one).

[Neosutra]

lol you only put it there because that's what you believe. It changes depending on who is looking at it. Your opinion here is not fact

Not true.

Each definition has a set of criteria that must be met to be contained in that category. Concepts of god contain no evidence or possibilities based on physical principles, but rather faith. Any principle that exists w/o evidence or any validation procedure falls into the last category. The basic tenant is that you cant prove god via science or logic, as it lacks all the foundations of a logical proof.

Your stuck with "i believe in god because i want to", and thats about it, with the realization that your "god" is completely different than the "god" that every other person believes in. To be honest, I dont care who is theist or not (unless your a scientist, as I believe scientist have a responsiblity to filter their information, but we have been down that road and everyone has their own opinion on the matter), I am just arguing the points of theism when brought up in this debate.

[Kaylia]

Both good quotes though I obviously disagree with the second, as he assigns a probability to a variable w/o really having a good reason to associate it with any non 0 value.

As for the rest of the post, I am still confused exactly what your trying to say. Now your saying you were just trying to state that a fininite god and souls can exist? I thought you were stating that a plausible definition of an infinite god can exist (and thereby answer the paradoxs)? Perhaps I am just missing the point, but Ive scanned the last 2-3 pages and cant seem to come up with a solid idea of what your trying to say.

I associate it with something other than 0% because I can't disprove it with logics. If there was a real contradiction, then it would be 0%. The concept of God at the source is something very simple (the cause of our universe/existence). The more specification you add to this concept, the lower the probability is.

What you said about science (Fact ->Plausible Theory -> Plausible Probability -> Plausible Possibility -> Random Possibility) is correct, but it can only works for a finite sample of causality. Doing an extrapolation for the infinity and calling it "god" isn't breaking anything imo. It doesn't tell you anything about God, but it's a valid definition.

I'm not saying that God is impossible because it's impossible to define it, I'm saying that the only logically valid definition of God would be very far away from what most people think of God, something like a Pantheistic God or Spinoza's God (which is why I mention earlier the deist God). If you want, you can believe in that God with no problem - that's more or less what people like Einstein, Stephen Hawkins and such meant when they used the word "God" (which they did, a lot, and most uneducated religious people waste no time is grossly misunderstanding). This God is fine - it's the theist God - the God that not only knows what you are doing but cares about it, and cares about what you dress, what you eat, who you fuck, when you work, that performs miracles - that God is what makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

In this case, it was pretty close of what I was saying.

[Neosutra]

Both good quotes though I obviously disagree with the second, as he assigns a probability to a variable w/o really having a good reason to associate it with any non 0 value.

As for the rest of the post, I am still confused exactly what your trying to say. Now your saying you were just trying to state that a fininite god and souls can exist? I thought you were stating that a plausible definition of an infinite god can exist (and thereby answer the paradoxs)? Perhaps I am just missing the point, but Ive scanned the last 2-3 pages and cant seem to come up with a solid idea of what your trying to say.

I associate it with something other than 0% because I can't disprove it with logics. If there was a real contradiction, then it would be 0%. The concept of God at the source is something very simple (the cause of our universe/existence). The more specification you add to this concept, the lower the probability is.

What you said about science (Fact ->Plausible Theory -> Plausible Probability -> Plausible Possibility -> Random Possibility) is correct, but it can only works for a finite sample of causality. Doing an extrapolation for the infinity and calling it "god" isn't breaking anything imo. It doesn't tell you anything about God, but it's a valid definition.
.

I wouldnt associate ANYTHING with 0%, but when something has no evidence or supporting premises what-so-ever other than "i thought it up lol", then you can toss it in the category of extremly unlikely. Sure the concept that zues created the universe has a possibility of about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001%, and thus we cant say "its absolutely impossible". But when compared to actual scientific explainations for origins, we can safely toss out all the approximate 0 cases (i.e. if we were to really allow -every- possibility we can imagine into our category of "plausible possibilities", then we would get no where in ever defining the true answer to any given question. Thats like saying "well, someone stole my bike, it was equally likely that Rykosheet did it, as it is that all the atoms in the bike simultaneously met their anti-particles and the bike exploded". The later possibility is not plausible and shouldnt been examined as a rational theory.

As for the second part of your post about infinity and causality.. You keep repeating the same invalid premis and conclusion over and over and over. They are still incorrect, no matter how many times you restate them. And before you again say "well prove me wrong", picture me stating "bananas exist, thus god exists", then saying "prove me wrong". There is no where to begin with your statements, as every part of the logical structure is nonsense. You would have to have a valid premis, or a valid conclusion, for me to even break it apart.

[Demosthenes11]

I don't understand why you feel a need to explain god with science. Why do you? Honest question

[Beckwin]

you basically answered your own question.

[Vail]

I don't understand why you feel a need to explain god with science. Why do you? Honest question

he's only upset that he doesn't have an argument to try and "break apart"

trying to explain god through science is alittle bit silly, all things considered: many people regard god as something completely beyond our ability to understand.

[Blarg]

A lot of people say their belief in god is just from faith, but they also tend to believe and rely on certain things that reinforce that belief like 'look how perfectly the earth is made for humans and animals' things like this can be looked at scientifically because it has made a claim about god that there was a involvement of god with the universe. Science can't unequivocally disprove a god that created the universe and has since left it alone, but when someones view of god includes claims that their god has direct influence on not only the universe but the humans on a tiny planet you have entered the realm of science. So in a sense science can eliminate (still not 100% like anything) certain gods based on the specific claims and attributes of that god but it can't disprove a god in the deist sense since that god has decided to be uninvolved and thus has no specific claims to be investigated.

[Kaylia]

The concept of Zeus is one that is over defined, and because of this, has a much lower chance of happening. Not only does it have a "name" (amongst the infinity possibility of names), it got a role, specific power and many other things. You could even argue he is illogical since he is breaking physics laws, and is not living on the Olympus or in the cloud. You don't have to push your definition of God that far.

A definition in my opinion has to be simple and absolute, a simple mathematics concept that doesnt contradict previous definition. God is the definition we gave to explain the fact that we exist. That cause doesn't even need to be sentient, even if it normally is in most religion/beliefs .

There is no where to begin with your statements, as every part of the logical structure is nonsense. You would have to have a valid premis, or a valid conclusion, for me to even break it apart.

There is no "nonsense" until you include logics tools to find relation between the differents proposition. A proposition on its own is always valid. That's why I asked you to add your own premise that make you dismiss the idea.

I don't understand why you feel a need to explain god with science. Why do you? Honest question

Is that adressed to me or Neosutra?

[Senoska]

I don't understand why you feel a need to explain god with science. Why do you? Honest question

he's only upset that he doesn't have an argument to try and "break apart"

trying to explain god through science is alittle bit silly, all things considered: many people regard god as something completely beyond our ability to understand.

sure they do, that's why they tell us what his likes are, what his dislikes are, etc

[Mizango]

I don't understand why you feel a need to explain god with science. Why do you? Honest question

he's only upset that he doesn't have an argument to try and "break apart"

trying to explain god through science is alittle bit silly, all things considered: many people regard god as something completely beyond our ability to understand.

sure they do, that's why they tell us what his likes are, what his dislikes are, etc

That is one of those contradictions that I have NEVER been able to get a straight answer on. Even my family's old pastor used to play the theist's favorite "God doesn't need a reason to exist, he's just that awesome" card. I think everyone here gets the general premise of what is being said, its just the terminology that seems to be feeding this festering shit storm.

Religion, the worlds great divider.

[Neosutra]

10 pages and I still think I have no clue what Kaylia believes, as it keeps getting redefined in every post.

I never really get anything but frustration from theist arguements, but I keep hoping that one day Ill get an answer that isnt based entirely on fiction and logical fallacies. I know very well the social stigmas and cultural developments, as well as the human weaknesses that lead to a psychological desire for existance beyond one's self, yet I still cant concede that 80% of the planet is that vulnerable to superstition. There has to be something else there, I just cant accept that our species is that enept. Sometimes I wish the theist were right, that the atheist are just deluding themselves and somehow naive to the great wonder that so many people seem to see. At least then the vast majority of people wouldnt be brain-washed apes following the line of superstition and dogma to whatever cliff it takes them. Instead they would be an enlightened chosen people, destined for eternal life.

But I just cant do it. I cant give up the one thing that makes us human. I cant give up reason and the desire to study to mysteries of our universe. To find the answers, and push aside the dogmas that have held back our knowledge for so long. I just cant give into the easy answer, that everyone seems to want to believe, because it makes them feel special. I feel special enough just being a peice of rotten eco matter, it makes everything seem even more amazing in perspective.

Our universe is a vast and amazing thing, and we havent even begun to understand it. Dont trivialize it with tiny concepts of gods that do nothing but belittle the wonder that is our reality.

[Beckwin]

kaylia's agnostic, quit being so dense.

[Demosthenes11]

the world must be real tough neo, being smarter than everyone and all...

[Neosutra]

the world must be real tough neo, being smarter than everyone and all...

Intelligence is a burden, but keep tossing the "your an elitest" card out there to gain support for not having anything to add.

But you dont have to be brilliant to be an atheist. THAT is my main point. I see so many smart people making dumb decisions that violate the scientific principles they follow. You can be a complete moron and be an atheist, or a theist. Or be completely brilliant and be a theist. That doesnt change the fact that theism violates rational principles.

And to beckwin, Kaylia is a theist agnostic, and furthermore she/he is arguing the theist case in this thread. Im suprised you use the word dense on such a dense statement.

[Beckwin]

Agnosticism maintains that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind; those divine attributes transcend human comprehension. The concept of God is just too big a subject for a person to wrap his or her mind around.

this is essentially what kaylia has been arguing. basically that the possibility is there and it exists in a way that conventional human understanding and logical/scientific knowledge can't logically comprehend.

the theist element of agnosticism is just as important as the atheist element, which is why I don't personally identify with it is what kaylia is trying to explain or put out there.

[Kaylia]

But you dont have to be brilliant to be an atheist. THAT is my main point. I see so many smart people making dumb decisions that violate the scientific principles they follow. You can be a complete moron and be an atheist, or a theist. Or be completely brilliant and be a theist. That doesnt change the fact that theism violates rational principles.

I wouldnt associate ANYTHING with 0%, but when something has no evidence or supporting premises what-so-ever other than "i thought it up lol", then you can toss it in the category of extremly unlikely.

I don't understand your opinion either. In one post, you say there is a small possibility, and in the other, you say it violates rational principles. Thing is, it can't do both at the same time. Something that has a chance of happening can't be impossible, or it has no chance of happening.

You admitted there is no way to disprove the concept of God earlier, and for the same reasons, it doesnt violates rational principles. When there is a contradiction in both theism and atheism arguement, I've no choice but to go with the agnostism. I don't want to side with people who believes they can prove/disprove something using flawed argument.


Out of curiosity, I will ask you two questions about your own beliefs
1) If God isn't a valid idea to explain the existence of this world, which postulate would you make to explain the fact that you exist, that the universe exists
2) If there is a small possibility that God exists, (refering to your 2nd quote), then what's wrong with people having faith? You lose nothing if there is no god or a non sentient god, but could hit the jackpot if there is one who is listening.


[edit]
Just to clarify my 2nd paragraph, I've no problem with theist who believe because faith, I was talking about the one who believes you can rationally prove that God exist.