Is there a divine being

[Lyanna]

It seems that one of the major issues that a lot of people have is with "proof" - or rather, the nature of proof. What type of thing would be acceptable proof? Physical evidence? Logical argumentation? Metaphysical/supernatural occurences? Scientifically-tested theories?

 

How can you prove/disprove/demand proof of something when the nature of that proof isn't specified?

 

-Lyn-

Edited February 28, 2005 by Lyanna

[behindthemask08]

I personaly perfer not to discuss politics or religion, there is no right answer and the people who are caught up in what they belive is right will always die of a stroke first arguing their points or belifes, even athesists who belife in nothing have that beliefe of nothingness which they too discuss and argue for and about.

So you don't ever take a stand for your beliefs?

And though I consider myself an atheist, I will never say I believe in nothing. I just don't believe in a god/angels/spirits/etc.

 

Lyn - I think a tested scientific widely accepted theory is when i will be lieve

Edited March 1, 2005 by behindthemask08

[Grum]

The problem with all-powerfull beings is that you can have them do whatever you want. There's no way to validate whether it satisfies certain regularities. As such, gods aren't useful to get a better understanding of the world around us. I can understand that people can take comfort in believing in "something", be that the Christian God, the Hinduist pantheon, or some vague new-age spiritual idea, and that's fine with me. Just try not to confuse untestable beliefs with science.

 

Oh, for the record: I'm an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any gods, and I think it's fundamentally impossible to prove there is one (or more).

[Wolf_Lord]

So you don't ever take a stand for your beliefs?

 

I know what I belive and for me that's all I need. I don't need to prove myself or defend my belifes to others, so no I don't every take a stand for my belifes. If I don't agree with someone I just don't listen to them. I use to fight tooth and nail for my belifes, but eventualy I learned that I am going to belive what I belive and you are going to belive what you belive and neither one of us is going to change the others point of view... in a general since I'm sure you understand what I mean. It's easier to surroung yourself with likeminded people than it is to argue with people whose views and oppions are never going to change anyway. Why waste a lot of breath time and stress over something so trivial as the individual belifes of 6 Billion people.

 

NeoSeS

 

** Your belifes count for 1:6,000,000,000 of the worlds populations belifes. If you want to think about something, think about that.

[Kenneth916]

i personally believe there has to be some kind of a "devine" being...i support my belief with the clockmaker theory. if you arent familair with it ill give a short description-

  think about walking along a beach.as you are walking you find a pocket watch. now i ask how did it get there? what created it? those answers are simple...humans. now what the clockmaker theory suggests is that in order for something as complicated as a watch to function properly something more complex had to have created it...now we as humans are the most complicated things that we know of...and we function properly (most of the time) do we not?

So, you're saying that for something as complicated as humans to exist, something more complex had to have created it?

Actually I would take it in the other direction. What could possibly be more simple than an eternal, divine entity. It is entropy (the concept not the person) run to the extreme back to order.

[Grum]

What could possibly be more simple than an eternal, divine entity.

No eternal, divine entity.

 

And your last sentence doesn't make sense. Not only because I can't for the life of me figure out how you jumped from entropy to intelligence, but also because I can't parse it.