Leading Atheist Philosopher Concludes God's Real

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Ancient scriptures and artifacts. And that was my point, faith requires little or no evidence. But how many atheists have really looked for evidence rather than dismissing "God" ?

What evidence are you suggesting is acceptable as unambiguous 'proof' of god?

A body?

A fossil?

A supernatural post-it saying:

"I made the universe, when the heat death occurs could someone turn off the light?"


Hint- when people talk to their god(s) it's called praying.

When they hear god(s) it's called schizophrenia.

[Whaleboy]

It actually seems that no morale ==> no belief in god.

Say again?

Wittgenstein is often taken as a license to assert anything, by assigning it its own language game. I doubt that was Wittgenstein's intent, even though he was a very religious person.

True, though the way I read it, he addresses that to some extent in "On Certainty", to a lesser extent in "Philosophical Investigations". I want to steal his numbering system!

[Kuciwalker]

What does that have to do with what I was saying?

The fact that our approximations fail horribly at a singularity doesn't mean that there actually aren't any scientific laws that apply.

For it to be infinitely curved you need to look at it from the point of view of this space-time, which described as infinitely curved is absurd! A singularity is not dependent upon our time, merely a dimensional set internally finite.

...

Infinite curvature means that it's an infinitely small hypersphere.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
There are no simple explanations for anything in this complicated universe.

You mean like "God made it"?

[Whaleboy]

The fact that our approximations fail horribly at a singularity doesn't mean that there actually aren't any scientific laws that apply.

Infinite curvature means that it's an infinitely small hypersphere.

That's precisely what I was saying!

http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content/learread.html

EDIT: With reference to infinity, a concept you evidently don't understand.

[Kuciwalker]

Uh, AFAIK your post didn't even make grammatical sense. Let's look at it again:

For it to be infinitely curved you need to look at it from the point of view of this space-time, which described as infinitely curved is absurd!

WTF is this supposed to mean? We have to look at it from "this" space-time, which it is absurd to describe as infinitely curved. NO DUH. That's pretty obvious. Spacetime may very well have been smaller before, though.

A singularity is not dependent upon our time, merely a dimensional set internally finite.

This is just random words strung together, as far as I can tell.

[Whaleboy]

WTF is this supposed to mean? We have to look at it from "this" space-time, which it is absurd to describe as infinitely curved. NO DUH. That's pretty obvious. Spacetime may very well have been smaller before, though.

Yes but you seem to be approaching it by saying that infinitesimal = smaller, whereas infinitesimal =| smaller. (The latter term of course being relative ). My point was that from the point of view of this space-time, it is not infinitely curved, however that need not be the case externally, indeed, another infinitesimal dimensional set may well be finitely curved internally though externally we view it differently. Of course, the consequence from our own point of view, if you take it back to internally infinitesimal, as you are saying, is that this space-time began at the big bang. Pwned.

This is just random words strung together, as far as I can tell.

The key point there being "as far as I can tell" .

[Kuciwalker]

Yes but you seem to be approaching it by saying that infinitesimal = smaller, whereas infinitesimal =| smaller. (The latter term of course being relative ). My point was that from the point of view of this space-time, it is not infinitely curved, however that need not be the case externally, indeed, another infinitesimal dimensional set may well be finitely curved internally though externally we view it differently. Of course, the consequence from our own point of view, if you take it back to internally infinitesimal, as you are saying, is that this space-time began at the big bang. Pwned.

Space-time isn't in another space-time. You measure the curvature by measuring the angles and side lengths of triangles. You're babbling incoherently.

[Elok]

Perhaps this was already covered in the six pages I'm too lazy to read, but what is this Atheist Philosopher "Leading" in? Book sales, or some sort of poll? How do you measure it? If it's just prominence, then Sun Myung Moon qualifies as a "leading religious figure," but it's not like he's got credibility...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Asher
British.

Philosopher.

God.

Canadian

Puffs

[Theben]

Originally posted by Agathon

No. Religion is a mild form of mental illness, as is conservatism. They are quite similar, which explains how they are often found in the same individuals.

Perhaps there is a religion/conservatism gene!

Then they can all be cured!!

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Elok
Perhaps this was already covered in the six pages I'm too lazy to read, but what is this Atheist Philosopher "Leading" in? Book sales, or some sort of poll? How do you measure it? If it's just prominence, then Sun Myung Moon qualifies as a "leading religious figure," but it's not like he's got credibility...

there was in fact some discussion about this on the second page or so, but to expect such sense by the sixth page is madness!!!

[Berzerker]

What evidence are you suggesting is acceptable as unambiguous 'proof' of god?

Look at my thread on Saturn and Pluto.

Hint- when people talk to their god(s) it's called praying.

When they hear god(s) it's called schizophrenia.

Then schizophrenics created civilisation. They did alot of talking to and about God and their belief in god(s) is why most of the world believes in god(s) now. So if you want proof that God exists, read what those earlier peoples wrote about God. That is the illogic of atheism, it discounts god without a serious investigation and does so by picking apart the easily refutable beliefs of religious nuts or the power hungry employing religion.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That is the illogic of atheism, it discounts god without a serious investigation and does so by picking apart the easily refutable beliefs of religious nuts or the power hungry employing religion.

But isn't the onus of proof on those who wish to prove something that is not empircally obvious? I may believe there is a higher being, but I don't think it can be proven in any way. Simply because people in the past believed it isn't proof to me.

[Urban Ranger]

@ Imran

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yes, more than 90% of the people who've lived believe in God. That tells me further investigation is required.

Did you count the Chinese, the Hindus, whole mess of people who lived and died in South America and Africa, etc?

So how did you come up with the 90% figure?

Besides, the same argument can be applied to interesting ideas such as Spontaneous Generation and Phlogistons.

Originally posted by Berzerker
What did ancient peoples say about "God" and can we detect knowledge from these ancient peoples they should not have had. That to me would be compelling evidence for a "God(s)" in contact with ancient peoples.

Even if it is shown that ancient peoples had knowledge beyond their abilities it did not indicate there were a god.

Originally posted by Berzerker
After all, the belief that God was a source of knowledge for ancient peoples may be the clue to finding God.

The contradictions of various myths and legends effectively rule out anything "real" behind them. For example, the Greeks had it that Prometheus gave fire to man, but the Chinese had it that it was a man who discovered fire.