- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- God is in the Neurons
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| God is in the Neurons | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 26 2011, 06:49 PM (1,933 Views) | |
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 02:43 PM Post #16 |
 
|
Saying that it doesn't exist envokes the counter argument that it does exist. Modern science proves that seeing is not believing. What I mean to say is that it's a dual sided coin, each side thinking they're definitley right while niether side hide has anything more than theories. No side has emperical, logical, or factual evidence that can't be countered with another. |
 | |
 |
 
|
| SirParagon | Oct 14 2011, 04:57 PM Post #17 |
Sparking!
|
Repeat: Absolutely no point in arguing this if there's no evidence either way, although the impossible burden of truth resides exclusively upon the affirmative side. I already explained why agnosticism makes no sense, it's an inherently flawed idea. You don't need to search the entire universe to confirm whether a square circle can exist. Edited by SirParagon, Oct 14 2011, 05:07 PM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 05:23 PM Post #18 |
|
Yup, no one has proof and both sides think that they are more right while none have anything that can't be contradicted by the other. "Do you have proof there's god" "Do you have proof there isn't" "What's the effect of God" "None, God is the ultimate cause and doesn't have one" Also I feel that athiesm is actually the belief in coincidences not the other way around. The way our solar system and all other solar systems are setup are so that even a few nanoextreme inches off and the whole thing would blow up. The favor of the universes is so immense that it's hard to believe that "it's all one huge coincidence" and there wasn't some type of designer working on the outside to make it so. Inherently I feel athiests have created the universes largest number. The coincidence of the exact situation of the solar system, organic perfection, human bodies by evolution even though the earth is not old enough for humans to have evolved from randomly organisms, even more so not enough time from the first apes into humans, would all be the probability: 1 ______ this universes largest number Obviously that doesn't discount the possibility of it happening. One could contradict the argument above with their own. But a viewpoint can be made that the explaining has to be done on the athiest side. It's a never ending troll of all time that's always been based on opinion and view points. I'm not saying that one side is better, just that they're either equally as good or equally as bad. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 14 2011, 06:41 PM Post #19 |
|
Why can't the Universe happen out of coincidence? Why does a grand and "Intelligent" designer needed? And when does this designer/first cause become a Personal god? To say both sides are Equal is not being true about things. Ethier you have evidence to back up your claim or you don't. To say that a belief that the world is only 20,000 years old when their is evidence to contrary is not giving both sides a fair assement. |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 07:26 PM Post #20 |
|
It can happen but the point I was making that aiethism is a belief in coincidence. I'm not against it exactly, but I was responding to his claim of religion being the side that has more to respond to. I also never said it was required for, but it would be less of a coincidence for that 1 coincidence of a designer being right and designing the rest then the perfection of the solar system etc being correct. Again just answering his claim that one side is better than the other since they have more to prove or something. Where did you read that I wrote personal God?
Where is evidence that your side is right? Where did you get 20k years from? I never said that. Just because you say someone doesn't have proof doesn't mean they're wrong, unless you have proof. I'm saying that NO one has proof and yet people continue to argue. It's an ultimate never ending troll of opinions that neither side has proof of. One side thinks they are more scientific and logical, while the other thinks the same. I'm saying not to be caught up in the Sheeple that think that either side is definitively correct and bash the other side since no one is really more right or wrong then the other. Edited by Mihawk, Oct 14 2011, 07:38 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Oct 14 2011, 07:38 PM Post #21 |
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
The bible claims the Earth is about 3,000-10,000 years old, yet we have fossils that are over a million years old. I think that's what he means. He means one side seems more likely.
http://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html Edited by Cal, Oct 14 2011, 07:39 PM.
|
 | |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 07:40 PM Post #22 |
|
I don't know where get got bible from but I never mentioned it. I'm all for disputing the points in certain religions but bashing religion/God entirely has no standing point. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Oct 14 2011, 07:43 PM Post #23 |
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
It's not about bashing anything. It's about logic and evidence. I'm not naive enough to think either side can provide 100% accurate answers but Sasuke's point stands. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 14 2011, 07:44 PM Post #24 |
|
My mistake I had thought otherwise. Not necessarily having support for your claims/beliefs that are verifable are more than just any other opinion.
I wasn't aruging for my side I was thinking that I was refuting someone elses. 20K comes from Creationists thought that the world is only 20,000 years old. I never claimed you said that though I can understand why that would be taken as. "To say" sounds as if I was speaking of something you claimed. I was infact speaking in general of a belief of someone's. You are abosoultely correct that just because someone doesn't have proof for their claims does not mean they are wrong. "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence" But I or no one else should than take that claim seriously without evidence then should we? Surely a wrong claim with support is more reasonable(be it illogical) than a claim of seemingly believeable claim with no support(however much it may sound true). I do agree though that we can't truly no for sure who is right in the end/big scheme of things. |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 07:50 PM Post #25 |
|
This is another thing that comes down to opinion. Creationists believe that their point is more logical than yours. No point is better than the other, it's best just stick to your own points than bash others points since no one is really correct and no one is really wrong. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 08:08 PM Post #26 |
|
A better explanation to wrap up everything I said is that no matter how much "logic" you use, it'll still come down to opinion. I mean it's cute to say that you're on the side of science while in reality science never contradicts the theory of God because God is above science and universal laws since God created them anyway. One can easily respond with their own opinionated argument and call it more logical. That doesn't make either side right. The only way one side could be right is some proof, and according to a generalized belief or religion and athiesim, proof can never happen (other than after death, of course). People can make the argument that Science is slowly proving God wrong. But another can make the argument, no you're wrong Science is slowly proving God right and bring up points like antimatter. One could say that it's more likely for no God, and the other will respond nope, seems it's more logical that God does. Neither side is right and neither can be proven unless God shows up or a similar method for the opposing side (actually not sure how athiesim would ever be proven correct).
Edited by Mihawk, Oct 14 2011, 08:31 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Oct 14 2011, 08:55 PM Post #27 |
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
Logic isn't very subjective. It has a set meaning. It's not logical to begin with to say that two things that contradict each other are equally possible considering the evidence present. Do you agree with the bible that the Earth is less than 10k years old? Do you believe that relative and absolute dating are correct? Here are two ideas that completely contradict each other. You're correct in assuming that people believe what they want, but that doesn't make the ideas/processes equal. One is based on faith, the other is based on testing. Which is more relevant? Logic would back up through testing here, not through faith. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 09:10 PM Post #28 |
|
Logic is one of the most subjective things on earth. It's what sets women and men apart in arguments (no offense to anyone). Each will think that their logic is superior Also please don't bring up the Bible, the only thing I was saying is that either side isn't right in terms of just the theory of God and the theory of no God. I'm aware that the Bible is extremely fallacious but I'm not arguing that. If you go out and tell people hey your bible has many errors and science says your bible is wrong, technically you'd have a standing point since science contradicts what the bible says. But if you say God isn't possible according to science, now you'd just be bringing up your own logical understanding which doesn't exist in science. The thing that makes a difference at the end of the day is actual proof, not logical understanding of how you see things. If for some reason science disproved God, I'd say yea there's a point here. But again, science for a second does not disprove the theory of God in any fashion (because according to the theory of God, God created science and universal laws. If God were bound by the laws he created it wouldn't make him much of a God would it). Since neither side has proof, neither side is better than the other. That's the only thing it comes down to. Edited by Mihawk, Oct 14 2011, 09:22 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Cal | Oct 14 2011, 10:15 PM Post #29 |
|
I may not deserve to live, but I will protect those in my reach with my reverse blade!
|
Logic isn't very subjective, as I said earlier. Just because someone says something is logical, it doesn't make it that way. If I say that rain causes plants to grow, then that isn't logical. How is it not logical? Here is where we can use the scientific method etc to understand why it is a false statement.: Question: Rain makes plants grow? Research: Plants that receive rain tend to grow better and longer than plants that don't. Hypothesis: Rain makes plants grow. Experiment: Goes to the rainiest place in the US---Plants 5 different types of plants---Records the amount of rain the plants get----First 3 weeks plants grow great while it's raining everyday-----Next 3 weeks they slowly die Conclusion: Rain helps the growth of plants, however too much water is just as deadly as not receiving rain in the long run. Result: Rain in only one thing necessary and needs somewhat of a specific amount. Logic tells you that rain is needed, however it has to get specific in many ways to get a 100% accurate answer, and there is usually only one of those. This final result is true logic. How we get to that result is a different type of logic that helps us find the 100% accurate answer. Now why is it more logical to believe there isn't a God? It's because through testing and reasoning we can eliminate things that God supposedly did in the past. That means we can't get to the true result there because the chain of finding the truth has already been shattered. Does this make science superior? Yes. Why? Because the thing that makes science so significant is that it's not a set thing, it changes. The more we test, research, make hypothesis the more we can learn. So, if anything doesn't add up in science we reevaluate what's going on and look at it form a different angle. You can't do this with faith. Edited by Cal, Oct 14 2011, 10:25 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Oct 14 2011, 10:29 PM Post #30 |
|
exactly. just because someone says it doesn't make it that way If I say that rain causes plants to grow, then that isn't logical.
You don't get it still. I'm not against logic, just that too much opinion is involved in logic. The logic you showed me is logic we can agree on. There is probably other logical situations which we don't agree on. The best evidence to use is science and proof.
What exactly has been eliminated by science that God supposedly did in the past?
Again it's pretty cute to be on the side of science while science doesn't contradict God. God doesn't require "fate". The only thing that can be done is take down specifics of each religion, while the theory of God is never disproved by science. That's the only thing I've been saying so please don't bring up things like fate, the bible, which are all religion specific (the fate thing doesn't make sense imo anyway). If you want to "prove" or at least lighten the theory of God bring up a scientific reason that God can't exist. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:56 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy