Existence of God

ReconToaster wrote:

CivBase wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:This thread is still going? Truly, you guys make me all sad face inside.

QFT

Even I gave up on this thread long ago. It hasn't achieved anything, and likely never will.

In other words.... you lost

Call it what you want, but you know what it is.

Rotaretilbo; Page 1 wrote:Ah, but you see Recon, many atheists do rule out God as even being a possibility. That is why there is a term agnostic to refer to people who have decided that there is no logical way to prove either side, and have thus decided to sit on the fence.

If we're going to argue logic, I'd say agnostic is the most logical conclusion to come to. Both sides have scientific support, and both sides have holes. So, if you do indeed not subscribe to any finite belief, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist.

Rotaretilbo; Page 3 wrote:I'd help Civ out, but I honestly believe that the most logical conclusion one can come to is agnostic, unsure whether or not a God exists. After that, it comes down to personal belief and faith.

Rotaretilbo; Page 24 wrote:I must say, for a thread that I had hoped would die off into both sides agreeing that there is no logical reason to take sides in this issue, and that all decisions after one consciously decides that there may or may not be a God are based on personal belief and faith, this thread has become exceedingly long.

Why do I bring all this up. Well, to show that the thread was doomed from the start, because, in the end, I'm pretty sure all of those reasonable enough to understand the basic tenets of logic will be able to agree that there is no possible way one could logically prove or disprove God. There are no winners in an argument in which neither side can win, only losers. Thus, Recon, you lose. Civ, you lose. kslidz, you lose. The only reason I don't lose (I certainly don't win, either) was because I had the sense to abandon this thread almost entirely after like page 4. :p

Rot wrote: there is no possible way one could logically prove or disprove God.

My dear friend, has your long absence from this thread deluded your memory? I agreed to such a statement long ago, whilst putting forth the statement that my argument is not one of 'whether or not the idea of a god is logical,' but whether or not it is logical to believe in such a theory indeffinitely.

Rot wrote:I must say, for a thread that I had hoped would die off into both sides agreeing that there is no logical reason to take sides in this issue,

I think some mis-took faith for logic.

Rot wrote: I honestly believe that the most logical conclusion one can come to is agnostic, unsure whether or not a God exists.

Agreed. I would call myself 'agnostic,' but the sound of it is just too soft.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Rotaretilbo; Page 1 wrote:Ah, but you see Recon, many atheists do rule out God as even being a possibility. That is why there is a term agnostic to refer to people who have decided that there is no logical way to prove either side, and have thus decided to sit on the fence.

If we're going to argue logic, I'd say agnostic is the most logical conclusion to come to. Both sides have scientific support, and both sides have holes. So, if you do indeed not subscribe to any finite belief, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist.

Rotaretilbo; Page 3 wrote:I'd help Civ out, but I honestly believe that the most logical conclusion one can come to is agnostic, unsure whether or not a God exists. After that, it comes down to personal belief and faith.

Rotaretilbo; Page 24 wrote:I must say, for a thread that I had hoped would die off into both sides agreeing that there is no logical reason to take sides in this issue, and that all decisions after one consciously decides that there may or may not be a God are based on personal belief and faith, this thread has become exceedingly long.

Why do I bring all this up. Well, to show that the thread was doomed from the start, because, in the end, I'm pretty sure all of those reasonable enough to understand the basic tenets of logic will be able to agree that there is no possible way one could logically prove or disprove God. There are no winners in an argument in which neither side can win, only losers. Thus, Recon, you lose. Civ, you lose. kslidz, you lose. The only reason I don't lose (I certainly don't win, either) was because I had the sense to abandon this thread almost entirely after like page 4. :p

Did I win?

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Rotaretilbo; Page 1 wrote:Ah, but you see Recon, many atheists do rule out God as even being a possibility. That is why there is a term agnostic to refer to people who have decided that there is no logical way to prove either side, and have thus decided to sit on the fence.

If we're going to argue logic, I'd say agnostic is the most logical conclusion to come to. Both sides have scientific support, and both sides have holes. So, if you do indeed not subscribe to any finite belief, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist.

Rotaretilbo; Page 3 wrote:I'd help Civ out, but I honestly believe that the most logical conclusion one can come to is agnostic, unsure whether or not a God exists. After that, it comes down to personal belief and faith.

Rotaretilbo; Page 24 wrote:I must say, for a thread that I had hoped would die off into both sides agreeing that there is no logical reason to take sides in this issue, and that all decisions after one consciously decides that there may or may not be a God are based on personal belief and faith, this thread has become exceedingly long.

Why do I bring all this up. Well, to show that the thread was doomed from the start, because, in the end, I'm pretty sure all of those reasonable enough to understand the basic tenets of logic will be able to agree that there is no possible way one could logically prove or disprove God. There are no winners in an argument in which neither side can win, only losers. Thus, Recon, you lose. Civ, you lose. kslidz, you lose. The only reason I don't lose (I certainly don't win, either) was because I had the sense to abandon this thread almost entirely after like page 4. :p

I'm just trying to shoot down other people's logic, not make my own.

You tied, Zaki.

I'm pretty sure this has been said before, but it can't be proved, or disapproved.

I'm pretty sure life evolved, as the superpositioned fossil record shows. Not to say it wasn't created, or if not at least there is some supreme entity.

RL wrote:I'm pretty sure this has been said before, but it can't be proved, or disapproved.

*sigh

I think that you guys are debating the practicallity of believing in a god, not wether or not it exists. Meaning this title is misleading!

x Gauz x wrote:I think that you guys are debating the practicallity of believing in a god, not wether or not it exists. Meaning this title is misleading!

We did both.

Zaki90 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Rotaretilbo; Page 1 wrote:Ah, but you see Recon, many atheists do rule out God as even being a possibility. That is why there is a term agnostic to refer to people who have decided that there is no logical way to prove either side, and have thus decided to sit on the fence.

If we're going to argue logic, I'd say agnostic is the most logical conclusion to come to. Both sides have scientific support, and both sides have holes. So, if you do indeed not subscribe to any finite belief, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist.

Rotaretilbo; Page 3 wrote:I'd help Civ out, but I honestly believe that the most logical conclusion one can come to is agnostic, unsure whether or not a God exists. After that, it comes down to personal belief and faith.

Rotaretilbo; Page 24 wrote:I must say, for a thread that I had hoped would die off into both sides agreeing that there is no logical reason to take sides in this issue, and that all decisions after one consciously decides that there may or may not be a God are based on personal belief and faith, this thread has become exceedingly long.

Why do I bring all this up. Well, to show that the thread was doomed from the start, because, in the end, I'm pretty sure all of those reasonable enough to understand the basic tenets of logic will be able to agree that there is no possible way one could logically prove or disprove God. There are no winners in an argument in which neither side can win, only losers. Thus, Recon, you lose. Civ, you lose. kslidz, you lose. The only reason I don't lose (I certainly don't win, either) was because I had the sense to abandon this thread almost entirely after like page 4. :p

Did I win?

You didn't read any of that post, did you?

Zaki, you can haz fail.

Angatar wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Rotaretilbo; Page 1 wrote:Ah, but you see Recon, many atheists do rule out God as even being a possibility. That is why there is a term agnostic to refer to people who have decided that there is no logical way to prove either side, and have thus decided to sit on the fence.

If we're going to argue logic, I'd say agnostic is the most logical conclusion to come to. Both sides have scientific support, and both sides have holes. So, if you do indeed not subscribe to any finite belief, that would make you an agnostic, not an atheist.

Rotaretilbo; Page 3 wrote:I'd help Civ out, but I honestly believe that the most logical conclusion one can come to is agnostic, unsure whether or not a God exists. After that, it comes down to personal belief and faith.

Rotaretilbo; Page 24 wrote:I must say, for a thread that I had hoped would die off into both sides agreeing that there is no logical reason to take sides in this issue, and that all decisions after one consciously decides that there may or may not be a God are based on personal belief and faith, this thread has become exceedingly long.

Why do I bring all this up. Well, to show that the thread was doomed from the start, because, in the end, I'm pretty sure all of those reasonable enough to understand the basic tenets of logic will be able to agree that there is no possible way one could logically prove or disprove God. There are no winners in an argument in which neither side can win, only losers. Thus, Recon, you lose. Civ, you lose. kslidz, you lose. The only reason I don't lose (I certainly don't win, either) was because I had the sense to abandon this thread almost entirely after like page 4. :p

Did I win?

You didn't read any of that post, did you?

He didn't say I lost/

x Gauz x wrote:I think that you guys are debating the practicallity of believing in a god, not wether or not it exists. Meaning this title is misleading!

But since neither side can be proved logically, it is not logically practical to subscribe to either side. Thus, the only logical and thus practical belief is that of an Agnostic, one who believes that there could be a God, but that there is no way to know.

Zaki90 wrote:He didn't say I lost

Then allow me to clarify. Zaki, you lost worse than practically everyone else in this thread combined.

Rot wrote:But since neither side can be proved logically, it is not logically practical to subscribe to either side. Thus, the only logical and thus practical belief is that of an Agnostic, one who believes that there could be a God, but that there is no way to know.

Then why aren't you agnostic?

when it comes to debating this stuff, there are no winners and losers, because it cant be proved or disapproved, the result of this is being upset that someone doesn't share the same ideas as you.

"I can haz c00kie"?

Actually, I like to think that everyone loses.

Ringleader wrote:when it comes to debating this stuff, there are no winners and losers, because it cant be proved or disapproved, the result of this is being upset that someone doesn't share the same ideas as you.

RESTATEMENT OF ALREADY ADDRESSED PEACE SUGGESTION FTW!

Rotaretilbo wrote:

x Gauz x wrote:I think that you guys are debating the practicallity of believing in a god, not wether or not it exists. Meaning this title is misleading!

But since neither side can be proved logically, it is not logically practical to subscribe to either side. Thus, the only logical and thus practical belief is that of an Agnostic, one who believes that there could be a God, but that there is no way to know.

They can be proved. But entirely logically.

All there is is evidence. Evidence that cannot be proved to be accurate itself. Thus, there will eventually be some kinda of accurate proof. Jesus shows up on the end of time. Or dieing relenting it is just blank.

Anyway, I just feel that is good to remember all the people I will get into say, " I told you so".

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:He didn't say I lost

Then allow me to clarify. Zaki, you lost worse than practically everyone else in this thread combined.

I did not lose. I tied!

Have fun with your bibles. Entertaining bedtime stories.

L0d3x wrote:Have fun with your bibles. Entertaining bedtime stories.

Have fun with your nonbelief and your purging flame in the afterlife

(fighting is fun )

"I'd rather believe in a God to find out there isn't one, then to not believe in one and find out there is one". -Pastor Schmit

JB wrote:

L0d3x wrote:Have fun with your bibles. Entertaining bedtime stories.

Have fun with your nonbelief and your purging flame in the afterlife

(fighting is fun )

"I'd rather believe in a God to find out there isn't one, then to not believe in one and find out there is one". -Pastor Schmit

Okay, good thing there is no afterlife.

Now I'm not trying to convert you to christianity, but I'd rather not have you belittle my beliefs because you think they're futile. You have yours, and I have mine.

I do think without religion there would really be no base for war (which is true). Which is why I really don't support any religions, but I do believe there is a God. There is also no way as to how this can be proven (rot has stated many times already). You can sit there and tell us that this and this proves there is no God, but it also supports the possability of a God existing, which is a paradox. Meaning the argument was over before it began, there's no logical way to explain this. Belief in God is like belief in the big bang, there's things to disprove it, and this to prove it, there really is no evidence that either things existed, or happened. It all comes down to how you were raised, how your mind is set on things, and whether or not you really think that illogical things can be grammatically true.

Sorry for double post.