Started by alexxmedeiros, October 14, 2016, 12:39:47 AM
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 08:16:19 AMCould I? Yes. Am I? Allow me to sing for you the song of my people.After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:53:53 PMWhat of it? By saying that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know you must also admit that you can not know anything. That is absurd.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:54:55 PMAre you certain about that? Could you be wrong? If you could, then how can you know it?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 03:05:42 PMQuibbles.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 03:13:40 PMI could be. But I'm probably not. [emoji41]Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:13:48 PMAre you certain? Or could be wrong that I'm "quibbling"?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on October 14, 2016, 03:15:10 PMYou know, this echolalia syndrome is a bit asinine.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:14:52 PMHow probable? Could you be wrong that you're probably not wrong? Infinite regress. Absolute Absurdity.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 03:16:31 PMI could be. But probably not. [emoji6]Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 03:17:10 PMI have proved my point. Have a good day sir.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 14, 2016, 03:19:24 PMThe only thing you have proven is that thinking is superior to knowing. One exercises your brain, and the other gives you a sense of smug superiority that drives you to find an atheist forum and start asking inane questions.Equal opportunity butt-stabber.
Quote from: alexxmedeiros on October 14, 2016, 02:51:57 PMNo. I could be wrong about a lot of things but there are things I can know for certain.But you have just given up all knowledge. You can't know anything. That's the absurdity of atheism.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 14, 2016, 03:27:23 PMOuch. Quite the epistemological smackdown from someone whose worldview seems to entirely consist of unquestioningly accepting the veracity of the first holy book thrust in front of your face.