128
   

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Forums: Religion, Philosophy, Psychology, Humor, Fact Is True
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Fri 10 May, 2013 10:38 am
@Frank Apisa,

Quote:
If a GOD exists...it is NOT supernatural...and it would not be a contradiction of "natural science."

If a GOD actually created this universe...that is not a supernatural occurrance...and it would not contradict "natural science."




Those are some mighty big Ifs that you have there Frank.

Lets just stop for a moment and think about it. Has something always existed? I think so what do you think? even if this something was a void or anti mater or what ever you would like to call it, it still seems as if it were something to me.

What would seem more likely? "that this something is such an awesome something with knowledge and all knowing or at least more informed than its creation and this something is able to create what ever it decides too.

With all of that said it seems to me that what I am describing is something that if existed would be a very complex form of existence itself.

Would it seem more likely and less complex for everything to exist in the unstable form that it is in than to have a creator exist and then for it to create all of this?

It seems to me that what we call existence is what would come before a creator would come. it seems that a creator just existing would take many more times longer to come into being than what it took for us "existence" to be where we are now.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Fri 10 May, 2013 10:55 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:


Quote:
If a GOD exists...it is NOT supernatural...and it would not be a contradiction of "natural science."

If a GOD actually created this universe...that is not a supernatural occurrance...and it would not contradict "natural science."




Those are some mighty big Ifs that you have there Frank.

Lets just stop for a moment and think about it. Has something always existed? I think so what do you think? even if this something was a void or anti mater or what ever you would like to call it, it still seems as if it were something to me.

What would seem more likely? "that this something is such an awesome something with knowledge and all knowing or at least more informed than its creation and this something is able to create what ever it decides too.

With all of that said it seems to me that what I am describing is something that if existed would be a very complex form of existence itself.

Would it seem more likely and less complex for everything to exist in the unstable form that it is in than to have a creator exist and then for it to create all of this?

It seems to me that what we call existence is what would come before a creator would come. it seems that a creator just existing would take many more times longer to come into being than what it took for us "existence" to be where we are now.


Thank you for sharing what "it seems to you", RL.

But whatever actually exists in this "existence"...is a part of nature. Nothing that actually exists can be considered "supernatural."

IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe...that is not a supernatural occurrance. It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science."

In any case, this is like trying to contemplate eternity...and infinity. Not an easy thing for a human to do. I often use the expression, "It's like trying to teach a ferret quantum mechanics." Maybe...perhaps...there are sentient beings somewhere who use the expression, "It's like trying to teach a human abour REALITY."

Why not just leave it at that?
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe... It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science." . . .
Are you gettin' all smart on me now, Frank? What's up?
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:07 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe...that is not a supernatural occurrance. It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science."


Quote:
Why not just leave it at that?


Because I do think that people should think for themselves about the likelihood of things existing that are more complex than existence. "such as a god who created all things into existence or invisible flying elves. Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:09 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe... It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science." . . .
Are you gettin' all smart on me now, Frank? What's up?


Nothing being said here that I have not said dozens upon dozens of times over the years, Neo.

Are you actually listening to what is being said these days...or what?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:11 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe...that is not a supernatural occurrance. It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science."


Quote:
Why not just leave it at that?


Because I do think that people should think for themselves about the likelihood of things existing that are more complex than existence. "such as a god who created all things into existence or invisible flying elves. Wink


Thank you for sharing what you think others should think, RL. I think that if you truly were thinking about these things in the "scientific" way you suppose you are...you would see nothing with which to disagree in what I have written on this issue.

But, I think you are about to go out to one of your unicorn, invisible elves, Tooth Fairy adventures...so I hope you enjoy it.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:14 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Are you gettin' all smart on me now, Frank? What's up?


No he's just tickling your ears with the things you want to hear. That is different than taking the other things that you disagree with "that he also says and thinking about them as if what he is saying could be correct. Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:16 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
neo wrote:
Are you gettin' all smart on me now, Frank? What's up?
No he's just tickling your ears with the things you want to hear. That is different than taking the other things that you disagree with "that he also says and thinking about them as if what he is saying could be correct. Wink
Frank is a great guy and I'm sure we could enjoy many a quaff together. But I seriously doubt he would make any post for my benefit.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Thank you for sharing what you think others should think, RL. I think that if you truly were thinking about these things in the "scientific" way you suppose you are...you would see nothing with which to disagree in what I have written on this issue.


Frank I did not say that I disagreed with anything you said, What I said is that I think people should think for themselves about the likelihood of things existing one way verses another. Wink

Gods and elves could exists according to some people but I would like for people to consider why they believe this to be true Smile
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe... It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science." . . .
Are you gettin' all smart on me now, Frank? What's up?
Nothing being said here that I have not said dozens upon dozens of times over the years, Neo.

Are you actually listening to what is being said these days...or what?
Ahhh! Mixed with all the smoke and mirrors, I guess I must have missed it. Laughing
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:22 am
@neologist,
Quote:
I seriously doubt he would make any post for my benefit.


I did not mean it that way but rather he was just saying things that you agree with because they add to your confirmation biases.
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:24 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
neo wrote:
I seriously doubt he would make any post for my benefit.
I did not mean it that way but rather he was just saying thing that you agree with because they add to your confirmation biases.
Ya lost me.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:27 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Ya lost me.


confirmation biases.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:32 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:
I wrote:
Ya lost me.
confirmation biases.
Double that. Read what you said
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:40 am
@neologist,
Quote:
Double that. Read what you said


I am not sure if you understand what I was saying. Let me try and make it more clear.

We all have confirmation biases and we like to hear other information that supports our beliefs but we do not like to hear information that counters our belief.
We will try"unknowingly" at times to defend what we believe by finding more information that supports our belief and give little to no credit at all to other factual information that goes against our beliefs.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 11:58 am
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
Thank you for sharing what you think others should think, RL. I think that if you truly were thinking about these things in the "scientific" way you suppose you are...you would see nothing with which to disagree in what I have written on this issue.


Frank I did not say that I disagreed with anything you said, What I said is that I think people should think for themselves about the likelihood of things existing one way verses another. Wink

Gods and elves could exists according to some people but I would like for people to consider why they believe this to be true Smile



What about the people who do not "believe" it to be true...but who also do not "believe" that it is impossible?

This is now getting so twisted that a reasonable discussion is almost impossible.

I do not KNOW if gods exist. Do you?

I do not KNOW that no gods exist. Do you?

I have no problem with you making a guess...but if you do not KNOW...then it will be a guess. (If you do not KNOW.)
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 12:00 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
neologist wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . IF a GOD exists...it is a part of nature...and IF a GOD "created" this thing we call the universe... It would NOT be in conflict with "natural science." . . .
Are you gettin' all smart on me now, Frank? What's up?
Nothing being said here that I have not said dozens upon dozens of times over the years, Neo.

Are you actually listening to what is being said these days...or what?
Ahhh! Mixed with all the smoke and mirrors, I guess I must have missed it. Laughing


No smoke...no mirrors. I seldom use them...and I speak quite bluntly. If you have missed them...it is because you were not paying attention...or you were thinking I was saying something other than what I actually was saying.

Wink
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 12:05 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
What about the people who do not "believe" it to be true...but who also do not "believe" that it is impossible?

This is now getting so twisted that a reasonable discussion is almost impossible.

I do not KNOW if gods exist. Do you?

I do not KNOW that no gods exist. Do you?

I have no problem with you making a guess...but if you do not KNOW...then it will be a guess. (If you do not KNOW.)


This is where I find a value in stats, I think by using statistical odds in the equation "do Gods exist" does seem to add value to the problem. Do not get me wrong because other forms of logical reasoning also have to be considered in the equation.
neologist
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 12:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
No smoke...no mirrors. I seldom use them...and I speak quite bluntly. If you have missed them...it is because you were not paying attention...or you were thinking I was saying something other than what I actually was saying.
Wink
It happens to us all, Frank. To butcher an old saw:
"I know you may think you understand what you believe I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Fri 10 May, 2013 12:26 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
"I know you may think you understand what you believe I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."


What are you saying? If you really do not have an interest in having your ears tickled you may want to ask Frank what his guess is about a god existing and why he would guess this way. Idea
 

Related Topics

What if no religions are correct, but there still is a God? - Question by neologist
We are all like little children who often say: "Mom, Dad, leave me alone, I want to be on my own". - Question by Leaffan
Beyond tribalism; How well does your religious label serve you? - Discussion by MattDavis
Is religion responsible for the opposition to peace in the Israel-Palestine conflict? - Question by maxdancona
Concern for Religious Freedom or Preaching Political Messages? - Discussion by wandeljw
Why People Seek Solace In Gods. - Question by mark noble
Catholic remarried couples should abstain from sex - Question by Tes yeux noirs
How can a good God allow suffering - Question by SawyerMentink
Religion and Fear - Discussion by TomTomBinks
A question for athiests - Question by onevoice
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?
  3. » Page 34
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.86 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 02:58:47
▲ ▼