The Existence of God (Myspace Edition)

[Modman]

I have invited an intelligent agnostic to the debate. He has read everything and his responses are brewing. It should be interesting to see his input. If we keep bringing in people on both sides, this could turn out to be quite the debate.

[Kellee]

Hey. I have read Jason's post. I do have a few things to input, but don't have the time today since I'm running late for a band concert. But, I do look forward to seeing what the agnostic you have invited has to say as well. I'm sure that this will be stated, however, I would like to know exactly what he/she believes. I think that agnostinc is somewhat of a general term. Also, I know a few Christians who may be interested in joining the debate, so I will talk to them about it.

[Modman]

thanks. yeah, it's pretty alright. i'm much more of an agnostic. i could definitely see how there could be something more. i'm not saying "god" or any of those type of notions. to me it's obvious that the major organized religions (christianity, islam, judaism...and so on) are made up because of our inability to get the answers to the questions that we're able to create, it has helped with keeping society "under control", and answers are always appealing. i'm not one that is partically blown away by the leaps and bounds science have made. science is extremely interesting and i love theoretical physics but it seems, in the end, as just a (game)method of catagorizing and labeling aspects of our life and nothing more than the illusion of knowledge. it allows an insanely greater level of interaction with our world and controlling the end results of certain interactions but i could just as easily believe that what we take as reality is just an illusion or something that our minds can in no way comprehend of at this time. just like roman soldiers dreaming of light bulbs and ipods. i think we're much more primitive/ignorant than most people take us for. every generation feels like they're different, like they have made some insane discovery but i feel that we aren't capable yet of making the logical decisions that a question as big as "what is life?" is asking. i rambled. food for thought. whatever. i love agnosticism (just taking as "a lack of knowledge". that no one has much of a clue) you seem like-minded to a certain extent, you'll get this. to me atheism is too much of a faith leap towards a concrete belief. it'll be fun to find out what turned out to be right. maybe we'll never know we ever were. never know we ever asked these questions or about this silly thing called "living".

OK K K

[Modman]

A complete lecture given by Richard Dawkins on the subject of God

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe7yf9GJUfU

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M

[Lazy Bastard]

I wonder if Kalev was as eager for my last reply as I am for his next...

[Lazy Bastard]

In the meantime, here's something Dawkins says in The God Delusion, the approach to which I don't wholly agree with:

It is indeed perfectly plausible that there is only one way for a universe to be. But why did that one way have to be such a set-up for our eventual evolution? Why did it have to be the kind of universe which seems almost as if, in the words of the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, it 'must have known we were coming'?

He goes on to give possibilities, such as the concept that it's not so unlikely that the universe should have formed as it did, or the "multiverse"/"megaverse" concept (which I semantically disagree with, as nothing can contain multiple universes by the very nature of the word "universe", heh). What he doesn't include as a possibility, though he nearly hints at it with a couple of other scientists' theories, is the concept that life may have evolved in some form or another in nearly any possible universe, with nearly any possible set of scientific principles and "laws". For instance, we now know that there are certain, microscopic lifeforms, which live just outside the openings of fissures in the ocean floor, where magma is expelled. These lifeforms can only survive in temperatures hundreds of degrees hotter than any other known organism can. And this is just on earth. Perhaps there are lifeforms that can only survive in a million times Earth's gravity, at negative one-thousand degrees celsius or colder, in complete darkness, that are argon-based and require liquid mercury to survive. I shall assume this was simply overlooked, as he IS simply glossing over such subjects.

[Kellee]

I don't really see how this is meant to argue against God's existance... I guess I could be missing something though. I don't know...

By the way, I don't think it's possible to have temperatures as cold as -1000 degress celsius. That would be below absolute zero...

[Modman]

Hey, if God can defy the laws of physics, why can't we?

[Lazy Bastard]

Kellee: Heh, right you are, as 0 Kelvin = −273.15 Celsius. I was merely using an outlandish example, irrespective of proper values. Plug in any number if you like. My reference was an addition to something Dawkins said in The God Delusion, primarily meant for Modman, as he's reading it. I don't agree with his approach to a particular problem, and I was giving a better alternative. Currently, I'm awaiting Kalev's latest reply, or yours if you like.

Modman: Heh.

[Modman]

In the meantime, here's something Dawkins says in The God Delusion, the approach to which I don't wholly agree with:



... (which I semantically disagree with, as nothing can contain multiple universes by the very nature of the word "universe", heh). ...

Well, if you want to talk semantics, LoL, it always struck me as ironic that atheists would even think to use the word Universe.

Universe

Uni verse

Uni = one, single

Verse = spoken sentence

Universe = A single, spoken sentence.

[Lazy Bastard]

I've always gone by the same assumption that Wikipedia states these days:

"Universe" is a word derived from the Old French univers, which in turn comes from the Latin roots unus ("one") and versus (a form of vertere, "to turn").

[Kellee]

Well, if you want to talk semantics, LoL, it always struck me as ironic that atheists would even think to use the word Universe.

Universe

Uni verse

Uni = one, single

Verse = spoken sentence

Universe = A single, spoken sentence.

Ha! Never heard that before. But I really do like it.

Anyway, Kalev will be back on here soon.. Idk when though. I'm not going to reply since it was a rebuttal to his post and to be honest, what I have to say is very short and probably very simplistic anyway.

[Modman]

Perhaps it is in order that we Atheists derive a new word for what is currently known as the 'universe' so as to avoid irony.

[Kellee]

Yeah. This debate? I don't know what happened. Kalev and I haven't really talked about it. But, I'll ask him later on when he's coming back to it. He's probably busy.

Anyhow, I deleted my myspace about a week ago. I was just sick of the stupid thing for plenty of reasons. But, I was bored earlier, so I logged onto my friend's just to see what's going on with the old forum. I didn't think anyone would have said anything.... But, clearly, I was wrong. There's a lot of retardedness going on. I would tell you just to ignore ignorant, insulting, unintelligent people who probably think they are doing God a favor, when really, they are failing miserably. But, I wont because it's pretty funny...

Eh, yeah... (But it wasn't me who said they were dumb and there just to provide laughter- but your responses were pretty funny themselves...)

[Lazy Bastard]

Heh, thanks. I don't hold anything they say against you, or theism in general, for the record. Though, if their words inspire me any time during the remainder of this debate, I can't help it