http://www.godisimaginary.com/

for better or for the worst?

for better it's good to know the truth.

xfiles

Thanks for that link, Resin. It is a very interesting site.

hmm.....interesting indeed

Thanks for that link, Resin. It is a very interesting site.


no problem bro.

I just got done praying to the jug of milk.

Same old Athiest rhetoric that has been used a million and one times. People who read that shit and say "Goddamn, I guess there is no god" are more gullible than the people who dedicate their lives to god.

None of us know whether there is a god or not, bottom line.

Same old Athiest rhetoric that has been used a million and one times. People who read that shit and say "Goddamn, I guess there is no god" are more gullible than the people who dedicate their lives to god.

None of us know whether there is a god or not, bottom line.

I tried both god and the jug of milk. after that I tried all the other gods I could think of. nothing yet but I guess miracles take time.

milk owns

None of us know whether there is a god or not, bottom line.

None of us "knows" if I see green the same way you see green. None of us "knows" if Santa Claus really exists or not. What's your point?

You seem to by saying "Why question anything as you can never really know or not. Just accept what you've been told".

fuck god and the milk.

Same old Athiest rhetoric that has been used a million and one times. People who read that shit and say "Goddamn, I guess there is no god" are more gullible than the people who dedicate their lives to god.

None of us know whether there is a god or not, bottom line.

sense

None of us "knows" if I see green the same way you see green. None of us "knows" if Santa Claus really exists or not. What's your point?

You seem to by saying "Why question anything as you can never really know or not. Just accept what you've been told".

Thats not what he means, hes saying none of us knows whats on the other side and that site neither proves nor dissproves anything other than following the bible or whatever else literally is ironic and foolish.

Beans point is that proclaiming that there isnt a god is equally stupid as saying there is one. He never said anything about "accept what you'e been told" and he doesent "seem" to be saying it at all.

I did like this part though

"None of us "knows" if I see green the same way you see green."

This is exactly the point, its like what Plato said about the cave and we can't see whats on the other side all we can see is whats in here so theres no need to jump to conclusions because of shadows we see from the light outside.

He never said anything about "accept what you'e been told" and he doesent "seem" to be saying it at all.

Yeah, I got confused by reading too many threads at once. Sorry about that part.

its like what Plato said about the cave

As a strange coincidence I'm in the middle of reading Plato's Republic at the moment. Spooky.

Here is a good video

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8uBAPbOWLxc

You seem to by saying "Why question anything as you can never really know or not. Just accept what you've been told".


Here we see one of the more popular Atheist techniques: totally misinterpret what someone says and put words in their mouth.

Same old Athiest rhetoric that has been used a million and one times. People who read that shit and say "Goddamn, I guess there is no god" are more gullible than the people who dedicate their lives to god.

None of us know whether there is a god or not, bottom line.

Religion is among one of my favorite topics to debate in some ways since I've spent a large amount of time reading about it. On the other hand, I really hate talking to people who refuse to change their mind, on either side of the coin, or even on the edge.

It is true that none of us know, and it is likely impossible to know if there is a god, or gods. However, it is irrational to suppose there is something there until strong evidence is presented. We are not all agnostics to fairies, yet there is some evidence (albeit dubious). We will never know absolutely for certain if fairies are real or not, but until presented with evidence it is silly to suppose something is there.

It also irks me that agnostics (which I was for many years) seem to give more creedance to a modern religion than an ancient one. What if the Greeks were right? What if there's something we have yet to conceive? The treatment of the idea of "God" in the strictly Christian sense seems to get a lot of respect, whereas most other things are just silly. Just because a boyband topped the charts this week doesn't mean they have the best music, just that this week the most people liked them. The same applies to faith. The most people liking the idea doesn't make it any more true (or false).

I dislike the idea of someone being indoctrinated into either a religious or atheistic lifestyle from a young age, but unfortunately many, probably most are. A site like the one linked shoots down some very basic judeo-christian thought, and might lead to questioning more, therefore in my mind is a good thing. It is only by considering all arguments under intense scrutiny that one should decide on their faith, or lack thereof.

I am happy to run through all of the cheif theistic arguments for the existence of a god, particularly in relation to the abrahamic god, however unless someone cares to pose the questions I won't spend my time doing so. Deism is fairly easy to dismiss if you have already established a base against the theistic. Pantheism is a whole different story, but for all intents and purposes is a sort of atheism with a reverance for nature.

Religion is among one of my favorite topics to debate in some ways since I've spent a large amount of time reading about it. On the other hand, I really hate talking to people who refuse to change their mind, on either side of the coin, or even on the edge.

It is true that none of us know, and it is likely impossible to know if there is a god, or gods. However, it is irrational to suppose there is something there until strong evidence is presented. We are not all agnostics to fairies, yet there is some evidence (albeit dubious). We will never know absolutely for certain if fairies are real or not, but until presented with evidence it is silly to suppose something is there.

It also irks me that agnostics (which I was for many years) seem to give more creedance to a modern religion than an ancient one. What if the Greeks were right? What if there's something we have yet to conceive? The treatment of the idea of "God" in the strictly Christian sense seems to get a lot of respect, whereas most other things are just silly. Just because a boyband topped the charts this week doesn't mean they have the best music, just that this week the most people liked them. The same applies to faith. The most people liking the idea doesn't make it any more true (or false).

I dislike the idea of someone being indoctrinated into either a religious or atheistic lifestyle from a young age, but unfortunately many, probably most are. A site like the one linked shoots down some very basic judeo-christian thought, and might lead to questioning more, therefore in my mind is a good thing. It is only by considering all arguments under intense scrutiny that one should decide on their faith, or lack thereof.

I am happy to run through all of the cheif theistic arguments for the existence of a god, particularly in relation to the abrahamic god, however unless someone cares to pose the questions I won't spend my time doing so. Deism is fairly easy to dismiss if you have already established a base against the theistic. Pantheism is a whole different story, but for all intents and purposes is a sort of atheism with a reverance for nature.

Fairies don't have fear working for them like Christianity does or a pleasant ending. Neither do they or ever did have a large following to help persuade more people. These are reasons people disregard fairies yet not Christianity, their existence is simply inconsequential.

However, it is irrational to suppose there is something there until strong evidence is presented.


Agreed, but I don't believe that our "human created" rationalism and logic is an adequate tool to explain or argue about the supernatural. To do so would be to grossly overestimate our capabilities IMO.

Agnostic 4 life!

Agreed, but I don't believe that our "human created" rationalism and logic is an adequate tool to explain or argue about the supernatural. To do so would be to grossly overestimate our capabilities IMO.

Agnostic 4 life!

If that's the way you feel, then I totally get your stance. I really dislike people who are agnostic simply on the grounds of "well... it could be, how should I know?" I respect your sort of agnosticism, though I still disagree with the stance. When it comes to this sort of thing it seems more a matter of personal preference rather than logical argument.

For me, "human reason" (as you put it) and the scientific method are the only real tools we have to make sense of the world. I agree that it is possible there is something greater or better, since I don't think that humans are that great to begin with.

As seen in Plato (since it was used earlier in the thread) along with the every other follower of Ptolemy, logical argument without evidence produces poor results because of foolishly assumed starting points. Only through the unification of deductive reasoning and testable experiments can we make sense of this nutty universe. Nothing else has produced concrete results beyond anecdotes, so nothing else should be as trusted. For me supposing a superior form of logic seems a bit Platonic in nature, so I shy away.

If that's the way you feel, then I totally get your stance. I really dislike people who are agnostic simply on the grounds of "well... it could be, how should I know?" I respect your sort of agnosticism, though I still disagree with the stance. When it comes to this sort of thing it seems more a matter of personal preference rather than logical argument.

For me, "human reason" (as you put it) and the scientific method are the only real tools we have to make sense of the world. I agree that it is possible there is something greater or better, since I don't think that humans are that great to begin with.

As seen in Plato (since it was used earlier in the thread) along with the every other follower of Ptolemy, logical argument without evidence produces poor results because of foolishly assumed starting points. Only through the unification of deductive reasoning and testable experiments can we make sense of this nutty universe. Nothing else has produced concrete results beyond anecdotes, so nothing else should be as trusted. For me supposing a superior form of logic seems a bit Platonic in nature, so I shy away.

So because I don't jump to conclusions you dislike me?

So because I don't jump to conclusions you dislike me?

I've found in my experience (albeit it only a few months) that those who call themselves agnostic, yet don't believe any religion tend want to make it clear that they're open minded. Yet I don't think I've encountered any atheist (including Richard Dawkins) who is 100% sure there isn't a god or gods.

In my mind if you're sure enough to make sense of all the theological arguments and find them all in favor of the side of atheism, it isn't a crime to say you're pretty sure of something, with a chance of being wrong. If it's a matter of labels, I couldn't care less. But why would I label myself agnostic against fairies, just on the possibility I could be wrong? Of course I MIGHT be wrong about something, but the same could be said about absolutely anything. Closed minded thinking in absolutes tends to be the creed of religious literalists. All atheists are agnostics who want to make clear how improbable a deity seems to them.

I dislike the mentality of agnosticism which says that it is foolish to feel one way or another on the chance of being wrong. If we applied that same logic to anything else done in life, we'd all sit in the corner scared of mistakes starving to death. We commit to decisions we make on the best possible evidence at the time, but are fully entitled to change our minds at any time. I see no reason why we should act differently when it comes to god(s) then whether or not to eat some toast. Because we could conceivably choke on that toast. But the chances against are so high that we don't even consider the possibility.

Here we see one of the more popular Atheist techniques: totally misinterpret what someone says and put words in their mouth.

Now I see how I misunderstood before. You use a sentence structure where the subject of the sentence, although it fits, isn't the most common choice. For example, if you replaced Atheist with XXXXXXX, a fast reader would insert something appropriate like Journalist or Demagogue.

Cool, I just learnt something interesting. Thanks!

I've found in my experience (albeit it only a few months) that those who call themselves agnostic, yet don't believe any religion tend want to make it clear that they're open minded. Yet I don't think I've encountered any atheist (including Richard Dawkins) who is 100% sure there isn't a god or gods.

In my mind if you're sure enough to make sense of all the theological arguments and find them all in favor of the side of atheism, it isn't a crime to say you're pretty sure of something, with a chance of being wrong. If it's a matter of labels, I couldn't care less. But why would I label myself agnostic against fairies, just on the possibility I could be wrong? Of course I MIGHT be wrong about something, but the same could be said about absolutely anything. Closed minded thinking in absolutes tends to be the creed of religious literalists. All atheists are agnostics who want to make clear how improbable a deity seems to them.

I dislike the mentality of agnosticism which says that it is foolish to feel one way or another on the chance of being wrong. If we applied that same logic to anything else done in life, we'd all sit in the corner scared of mistakes starving to death. We commit to decisions we make on the best possible evidence at the time, but are fully entitled to change our minds at any time. I see no reason why we should act differently when it comes to god(s) then whether or not to eat some toast. Because we could conceivably choke on that toast. But the chances against are so high that we don't even consider the possibility.

Maybe some day I'll reach your point of confidence in atheistic belief. As of now I only read atheist books on wether God exist, but I don't feel they've shown enough to make me believe there isn't a god enough to consider myself atheist.

The classic example of the absurdity of agnosticism is a teacup orbiting the sun. We don't have a way of proving or disproving that this teacup exists, but logical people don't consider themselves agnostic about the teacup. Logical people don't believe in the teacup due to lack of evidence. It could be said they are "without belief" in the teacup, making them teacup atheists rather than teacup agnostics. Most agnostics are atheists who can't hack the stereotype theists have created regarding atheists, or else can't bring themselves to rain on the theist parade. Personally, I only concern myself with nature, as I have found no evidence for anything supernatural. Those who claim to understand the supernatural have never proven it, but their claims have often been disproved.
http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_shawnhornbeck.shtml

The classic example of the absurdity of agnosticism is a teacup orbiting the sun. We don't have a way of proving or disproving that this teacup exists, but logical people don't consider themselves agnostic about the teacup. Logical people don't believe in the teacup due to lack of evidence. It could be said they are "without belief" in the teacup, making them teacup atheists rather than teacup agnostics. Most agnostics are atheists who can't hack the stereotype theists have created regarding atheists, or else can't bring themselves to rain on the theist parade. Personally, I only concern myself with nature, as I have found no evidence for anything supernatural. Those who claim to understand the supernatural have never proven it, but their claims have often been disproved.
http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/montel_shawnhornbeck.shtml

A tea cup is not a God and it's existence is incosequential to people. I know I know we've never seen the tea cup just like we've never seen God, but we've never seen macro evolution occur either. It's all just speculation about a puzzle that's missing the majority of its pieces.

So your saying that some guy named Jesus just pretended to be God to he point of being crucified and then people wrote about him, people who faced imprisonment and beheadings just for the hell of it. As a practical joke. And what claims of Christianity have been diproven? And what does a psychic being disproven have to do with Christianity?

A tea cup is not a God and it's existence is incosequential to people. I know I know we've never seen the tea cup just like we've never seen God, but we've never seen macro evolution occur either. It's all just speculation about a puzzle that's missing the majority of its pieces.

So your saying that some guy named Jesus just pretended to be God to he point of being crucified and then people wrote about him, people who faced imprisonment and beheadings just for the hell of it. As a practical joke. And what claims of Christianity have been diproven? And what does a psychic being disproven have to do with Christianity?

I believe Jesus is a fictional character. There was never a real man to be crucified. The new testament was written to be an allegory. It wasn't until later that the church decided which Jesus stories were going to be considered true, and chose to portray him as a real historical figure. Some people tried to insert references to Jesus into historical accounts, but the insertion is usually obvious.

As to evolution, we see evidence of it. That's why the tea cup is like god.... we have NO evidence for either. Belief in god (like the tea cup) is based on faith, which is basically the willing suspension of disbelief. It's nice to suspend your disbelief while reading fiction (such as the bible), but you're supposed to bring back a sense of reality when you put the book down.

I believe Jesus is a fictional character. There was never a real man to be crucified. The new testament was written to be an allegory. It wasn't until later that the church decided which Jesus stories were going to be considered true, and chose to portray him as a real historical figure. Some people tried to insert references to Jesus into historical accounts, but the insertion is usually obvious.

As to evolution, we see evidence of it. That's why the tea cup is like god.... we have NO evidence for either. Belief in god (like the tea cup) is based on faith, which is basically the willing suspension of disbelief. It's nice to suspend your disbelief while reading fiction (such as the bible), but you're supposed to bring back a sense of reality when you put the book down.


What evidence do we see of Macro evolution? Micro evolution I will give you, but macro has never been witnessed as it would "take to long" and as long as evolutionist use time as their shied they are safe. In a way time is their God.

Gypsy Jazz: "For me supposing a superior form of logic seems a bit Platonic in nature"

As Godel proved, you can have a truth in a logical system that can't be proved inside that system. So we don't need any superior form of logic to establish the case that our human logic is insufficient to prove the non existence of god.

This is quite a good "gotcha" argument that theists could use. I'm surprised that I haven't encountered it before.

Evidence of macro evolution? Just look around you at all the different races of mankind. According to the Old Testiment we all are descendents of Adam and Eve. Or if you don't believe that because that part of Genesis is unclear, we are direct descendents of Noah because everyone else was drowned in the great flood.

As god didn't go around creating any more people out of dirt after the flood, the fact that there are different races with different characteristics is proof of macro evolution.

how could different races not appear? You know skin pixelation has to do with the sun right therefor people in different parts of the world have different skin colors. The only difference in people is skin pixelation on the inside we're all the same.

I changed that post because I realize that that was an example of micro evolution, not macro. It was only up for a minute so nice catch.

Different races have more differences than just skin pigmentation. Hair colour, eye shape, average height, tendency to store fat etc. To pick an example, Japanese tend to have black hair, slanted eyes, yellowish skin pigmentation. This is an example of natural selection favoring those particular genes, which is an example of micro evolution.

An example of macro evolution would be a transitional form species such as dolphins with legs or humans with true tails. Both of which we have recorded evidence of.

I changed that post because I realize that that was an example of micro evolution, not macro. It was only up for a minute so nice catch.

Different races have more differences than just skin pigmentation. Hair colour, eye shape, average height, tendency to store fat etc. To pick an example, Japanese tend to have black hair, slanted eyes, yellowish skin pigmentation. This is an example of natural selection favoring those particular genes, which is an example of micro evolution.

An example of macro evolution would be a transitional form species such as dolphins with legs or humans with true tails. Both of which we have recorded evidence of.

I'm not denying natural selection. Just making that clear. Where are these dolphins with legs you speak of? I have heard of only the possibility of the extra fins being legs never that it was confirmed also if I'm not mistaken they only found one dolphin it seems for something that has something such as an extra set of fins that it would have more dolphins like itself or that it was the mutation itself.

In October last year a 4 finned dolphin was found off Japan. I believe that this is the only verified recording in dolphins, but there are multiple cases of baleen and humpback whales having hind legs. Whether you call them fins or legs, it's still 4 limbs. Dolphins only have 2 limbs. Yes it is a mutation. The mutation is in the part of the DNA that activates the development of the second set of limbs. But the DNA for the second set of limbs is already there, just not activated in all other dolphins.

This is a very strong evidence that dolphins and whales have 4 limbed ancestry, and hence it is strong evidence of macro evolution.

In October last year a 4 finned dolphin was found off Japan. I believe that this is the only verified recording in dolphins, but there are multiple cases of baleen and humpback whales having hind legs. Whether you call them fins or legs, it's still 4 limbs. Dolphins only have 2 limbs. Yes it is a mutation. The mutation is in the part of the DNA that activates the development of the second set of limbs. But the DNA for the second set of limbs is already there, just not activated in all other dolphins.

This is a very strong evidence that dolphins and whales have 4 limbed ancestry, and hence it is strong evidence of macro evolution.

Good point, just read about the foetus having the nubs. Limbs are alot simpler to explain compared to something like The respiratory system or why would things evolve into two opposite sex when an asexual creature seems like the superior being.

Also what do you think of this?

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/CheckableBiblicalAccuracy.html

It was written by an atheist who was trying to disprove Christianity and wound up converting to it. These are just samples from his site.

Also what do you think of this?

It says it is written by an atheist, but he's just a liar. From his "Why I left Atheism" page he claims he read the bible cover to cover four times and couldn't find any kind of scientific inaccuracy. There are heaps of scientific inaccuracies in the bible. I doubt that he has read even half of the bible.


http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html


This argument can be summed up as "If any of these scientific conditions were different, life would be impossible". Yes, that is true. It does not mean that there was a creator. There are millions of planets in the universe, and maybe there are millions of universes. The conditions only have to be just right on one of those planets for life to survive. And here we are on one of those lucky planets.


http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/CheckableBiblicalAccuracy.html

He claims he knows what the common beliefs of the day were when the different books of the bible were written. I have no idea what the common beliefs were back then and I seriously doubt that he does either. I do note that he doesn't provide any references to historical research proving his claims.

Blevunly, I was a Christian by default because my parents were and that was what was taught in school. It was only when I was in my late teens when I was at a time in my life of questioning everything that I started questioning Christianity. Stepping away and thinking about things rationally allowed me to see the whole delusion behind of Christianity.

Just give yourself time to think about what it is that you believe. Work it out for yourself, don't rely on other people's opinions. When you work out what your beliefs are and why you believe them, you'll probably end up a whole lot happier than you are now.

This argument can be summed up as "If any of these scientific conditions were different, life would be impossible". Yes, that is true. It does not mean that there was a creator. There are millions of planets in the universe, and maybe there are millions of universes. The conditions only have to be just right on one of those planets for life to survive. And here we are on one of those lucky planets.

I wasn't insisting there was a creator, but the fact that eevrything seemed to go right on this planet has got to make you wonder. your arguement resembles that of Richard Dawkins in hisbook the God Delusion(good book btw) The thing I don't like about it is that it allows the scientific part to dream up a solution and then it's instant ly accepted as what happened. Cause there's no proof of millions of universes with millions of planets existing.

Let's just say there were a million universe and each had a million planets that would equal 1000000000000 planets that's alot, but now let's say that their are 47 thigns taht need to go right and we'll shorten the list from seemingly infinite possibilities to having 3 possibilities 1 being lower 2 being exactly right and 3 being higher (in other words 3 to the 47 exponent) and we get 97492319316177512055219 and this is only with 3 possibilities and it already outnumbers the possible planets by97492319316.177512055219 to 1

He claims he knows what the common beliefs of the day were when the different books of the bible were written. I have no idea what the common beliefs were back then and I seriously doubt that he does either. I do note that he doesn't provide any references to historical research proving his claims.

I don't think your giving him enough credit on the biblical accuracy for things like the world is round and the order of creation being water dwelling creatures, birds, mammals, man(the same path evolutionist believe happened)

Blevunly, I was a Christian by default because my parents were and that was what was taught in school. It was only when I was in my late teens when I was at a time in my life of questioning everything that I started questioning Christianity. Stepping away and thinking about things rationally allowed me to see the whole delusion behind of Christianity.

Just give yourself time to think about what it is that you believe. Work it out for yourself, don't rely on other people's opinions. When you work out what your beliefs are and why you believe them, you'll probably end up a whole lot happier than you are now.

I guess I was in the same situation as you when I became agnostic. I'm not Christian anymore I am just showing why I'm agnostic. As people nowadays insult agnostics and seem so confident in their science which has many holes or their religion which has many holes.

I wasn't insisting there was a creator

I know you weren't, but the author of that web site was insisting that.

The thing I don't like about it is that it allows the scientific part to dream up a solution and then it's instant ly accepted as what happened.


Not quite. The author's argument is that with conditions just perfect for life, the only possible reason they could be that way is by design. I've only supplied another possible explanation that doesn't lead to the outcome that there is a creator/designer. My argument may not be the "real" explanation, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to provide a possible alternative to refute the author's original argument.


I don't think your giving him enough credit on the biblical accuracy for things like the world is round and the order of creation being water dwelling creatures, birds, mammals, man(the same path evolutionist believe happened)


The bible doesn't say the world is round. See here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm


I guess I was in the same situation as you when I became agnostic. I'm not Christian anymore I am just showing why I'm agnostic. As people nowadays insult agnostics and seem so confident in their science which has many holes or their religion which has many holes.

Atheism isn't a "faith" that professes the infallibility of scientific knowledge. There's heaps of things that science can't even begin to investigate due to the limitations of the scientific method. Atheism is simply a statement that "I don't believe in a God", just like "I don't believe in the easter bunny".

Not quite. The author's argument is that with conditions just perfect for life, the only possible reason they could be that way is by design. I've only supplied another possible explanation that doesn't lead to the outcome that there is a creator/designer. My argument may not be the "real" explanation, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to provide a possible alternative to refute the author's original argument.

While I agree a creator isn't the only way, I must repeat from my previous post it seems highly unlikely to occur randomly and I only used 3 possibilities when there would be alot more in reality.

The bible doesn't say the world is round. See here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

Nothing there really convinces me of the bible stating the earth as being flat, but after reading the round earth statements they aren't very convincing either both seem like twisted perceptions to meet an agenda.

Atheism isn't a "faith" that professes the infallibility of scientific knowledge. There's heaps of things that science can't even begin to investigate due to the limitations of the scientific method. Atheism is simply a statement that "I don't believe in a God", just like "I don't believe in the easter bunny".

Ok, and that's fine if your that confident. I myself don't see it as being as simple as the easter bunny for several reasons, a few of which I've already listed. Usually I'm debating from the evolutionist perspective against religous people, but either way I'm defending my position of remaining neutral on this topic.

Gypsy Jazz: "For me supposing a superior form of logic seems a bit Platonic in nature"

As Godel proved, you can have a truth in a logical system that can't be proved inside that system. So we don't need any superior form of logic to establish the case that our human logic is insufficient to prove the non existence of god.

This is quite a good "gotcha" argument that theists could use. I'm surprised that I haven't encountered it before.

Could you point me towards something that might explain this, and if such a thing exists a counter-argument/opposing view? I am terrible with math, and the only "logical" philosophy was Bertrand Russell, but that was "Religion and Science" and not really on the issues of proofs and such. Do you think it is easy to understand?

That idea seems to run directly contrary to all empirical philosophy, so it strikes me as rather confusing and I'd love to know more.

Godel's first incompleteness theorem states:
"For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

This has been proven, there is no opposing view. The proof itself is not difficult to understand, but the language of mathematical notation is difficult to comprehend unless you are used to it.

Here (http://www.math.hawaii.edu/~dale/godel/godel.html) is a math lite page of Godel's incompleteness theorem, but it is still difficult for the non mathematician to understand.

There are entire books devoted to explaining the theorem. Check your library.

You previously state this is a "gotcha" for theists to use. How might you respond to this, since from your wording I take it you are not one.

Also, I still feel this runs contrary to the empirical value of only acting on what is known to some degree. It does however seem that the idea of acting outside the system doesn't really apply so much to logic since regardless of any system you need some form of proof for something to be true.

Perhaps I am not understanding since I am math inept.

A theist says "God exists". I say "Prove your assertion because the burden of proof is upon you."

The theist could respond with: "God exists. However, due to to Godel's uncertainty principle it is impossible for me to prove that he exists because I claim that God's existence is a truth that isn't provable by our current system of logic. That is my proof."

Of course that proof could be used to prove that anything exists, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with the proof itself.

A theist says "God exists". I say "Prove your assertion because the burden of proof is upon you."

The theist could respond with: "God exists. However, due to to Godel's uncertainty principle it is impossible for me to prove that he exists because I claim that God's existence is a truth that isn't provable by our current system of logic. That is my proof."

Of course that proof could be used to prove that anything exists, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with the proof itself.

Ah, alright. So it really doesn't violate any sort of empirical logic, except to say that sometimes you can get an answer that is outside of a system. However in order for an answer to be recognized as true it must have evidence to back it up. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks a lot for explaining.

The concept of praying to 'milk' must not be taken literally,this theory can also be applicable to a wide range of dairy & dairy related products.

The concept of praying to 'milk' must not be taken literally,this theory can also be applicable to a wide range of dairy & dairy related products.

So then Milk worship is widely accessible to all types of people. For instance a vegan could pray to soy milk. Very interesting.

So then Milk worship is widely accessible to all types of people. For instance a vegan could pray to soy milk. Very interesting.

Exactly.