"God did not create Universe!", says Hawking.

[Ksandra]

Gonna say locking the thread was an accident, reopening it for now until I find out.

[Blarg]

Frankly, I knew it was by accident all along.

[SephYuyX]

Hallelujah.

[zoobernut]

Let the argument about sementricks resume!

[Blarg]

you know, I prayed that this thread would be reopened

[Tekki]

i believe i accidentally locked it. Thank god someone was looking over me

[zoobernut]

Praise be to Jeebus!

[Maxwell]

I reject the premise that Tekki locked it by accident.

Or do I simply believe he didn't lock it by accident?!

[Ashmada]

I said I gave up, but let's have a last ditch attempt.

The way you argue is hilarious.

Thanks. I do like to put a little humour in my lessons.

Not once in the argument did you attempt making any point.

This, what is ? I don't even !

You brandish occam's razor and Russel's teapot as an unstopable weapon,

Do not underestimate the MIGHTY RAZOR OF SLICING, nor the RUTHLESS TEAPOT OF SKULLCRUSHING, they are powerful artifacts.

I used them to explain and illustrate (respectively) one thing I and others have tried to explain to you a certain number of times :
that if a postulate does not provide answer to a question, it's useless and should be removed.

At no point have I claimed anything but that.
To reword and reiterate once again : "we can't disprove the nonexistence of a generic deity, but in absence of proof, one should not postulate such a deity."
Another way of wording it is : "burden of proof be on religion's shoulders, yarrrr!"
Yet another : "god : non-existent until proven otherwise."

I directed you at Russell's Teapot because, you know, he said the very same thing more eloquently than I ever could.
But apparently, even Russell can't make you understand the concept (I thought it rather simple, tbh).

but the second I ask you to think about it, you start tossing insult

You started accusing me of insulting you long before I actually did, so don't complain when I obliged.
Thing is, I did weigh my words before using them .
I made 2 accusations regarding you :
1. That you weren't reading my replies, merely a word here and there.
2. That you weren't very bright.

Evidences of the second accusation :

You can talk about "fewest number of causes" all you want, but it's not a question we can rationally approach. From this point, you can choose to ignore the questions of existence because it can't be answered, or you can choose to believe w/e you want (that's what atheists and theists do).

Denying the whole field of human knowledge we call "philosophy" doesn't make you look very bright.
Only one person has been arrogant enough to claim "pure reason" (and he did make a very good effort), but many have approached the question rationally, and many will keep to do so.

science can't prove science

This is quite a pearl. I ignored it before, but yeah... that doesn't mean anything.

Evidences of the first accusation :

Anyway, I havent seen you propose any reasonable solution here that solve that "causeless cause" issue. If you have one, then please, do post it.

I keep trying to say one shouldn't posit an unknown and you ask me to... posit an unknown.
Seriously, how am I not supposed to take you for a troll when you do that ?

I'm asking you for a proof that sciences can explain everything (wouldn't the burden of the proof be on you here).

Not once have I used the scientific angle, Max did. That's how much you pay attention to the discussion, you've been confusing Max & I for pages on end.
Anyway, whether science can or cannot explain everything has absolutely no relevance in philosophy.

The existence or non-existence of a god doesn't even concern science in the first place (pretty sure I said that already).


See ? Both accusations are substantiated. They are not random curses thrown by someone smitten by your brilliant rhethoric, alas.

At no point did I (nor Maxwell) made any gnostic statement, you've been arguing against a foolish strawman that apparently thinks he has the ability to prove a negative ; don't complain when people find it hard to take you seriously as a result.

[Tekki]

Maybe it was god's will to keep this locked Ksandra

[Kaylia]

We'll this is going to just continue into me saying "no atheism doesn't require belief" and Kaylia saying "yes, atheism requires belief". I don't agree, I find it to be semantics, and it's been said a dozen times already, so:

Have fun with that Kaylia. You're entitled to your opinion. No matter how bat shit crazy it is.

My opinion on the topic is far from being unique in sciences and mathematics field. If you believe all these people are batshit crazy...then fine...what can I say to convince you.

I used them to explain and illustrate (respectively) one thing I and others have tried to explain to you a certain number of times :
that if a postulate does not provide answer to a question, it's useless and should be removed.

At no point have I claimed anything but that.
To reword and reiterate once again : "we can't disprove the nonexistence of a generic deity, but in absence of proof, one should not postulate such a deity."
Another way of wording it is : "burden of proof be on religion's shoulders, yarrrr!"
Yet another : "god : non-existent until proven otherwise."

I directed you at Russell's Teapot because, you know, he said the very same thing more eloquently than I ever could.
But apparently, even Russell can't make you understand the concept (I thought it rather simple, tbh).

How do you determine if an axiom answer the question? Strictly speaking, God do answer the existence issue directly (That's how you define God in the first place). Sure, it might be the same as the invisible pink elephant, but the question is still answered.

What you're saying here is that every axioms has to be verifiable by sciences, because, according to common sense (ie: Russel's teapot), anyone could propose any solution. However, the problem remain that sciences -can't- answer every question, and can't be used as the method to answer this question. If you want to deal with this issue, you have no choice but to go back to philosophy and adds a few more axioms.

Not once have I used the scientific angle, Max did. That's how much you pay attention to the discussion, you've been confusing Max & I for pages on end.

My bad, atheists all look the same.

I keep trying to say one shouldn't posit an unknown and you ask me to... posit an unknown.
Seriously, how am I not supposed to take you for a troll when you do that ?

Do you have any better solution to propose them? Any better methods to obtain an answer?

Denying the whole field of human knowledge we call "philosophy" doesn't make you look very bright.
Only one person has been arrogant enough to claim "pure reason" (and he did make a very good effort), but many have approached the question rationally, and many will keep to do so.

And where am I denying the whole field of human knowledge? Before doing any sciences, you have to do philosophy/maths to establish your axioms. I'm pretty sure I said so multiples time already in this argument.

The only thing I ever said is that agnosticism require less axioms than atheists, and both can do sciences properly. If you believe I talked about "pure reason", please tell me where I did, because my last post to Maxwell clearly indicate otherwise.

[edit]
And since the thread will be locked, just send a pm

[Ksandra]

Maybe it was god's will to keep this locked Ksandra

I'm going to hell, aren't I?

[Seanr]

I wonder if Gods friends made better universes

[Mizango]

You slander God and people come out the woodworks with wheelchair jokes. Stating the obvious is srs biz.

[Xno Kappa]

I believe in God. I'll gladly take Heaven over the Hell you heathens will populate for refusing to acknowledge that Jesus died for our sins.

[Maxwell]

You take the mormons for eternity, I'll take all the strippers, and all the good bands.

[Xno Kappa]

You obviously have no shame, saddens me you lead such a pathetic life without the love of God.

[Zhais]

'tis a good thing god loves everyone, regardless!

Unless you're gay, bisexual, genderless, atheist, catholic, mormon, muslim, jewish, lutheran, protestant, hindu, voodoo, masturbate, have pre-marital sex, think about pre-marital sex, think about masturbation...

[Azull]

You take the mormons for eternity, I'll take all the strippers, and all the good bands.

You'd rather laugh with the sinners then cry with the saints?

[Mizango]

Any day of the week.