Ok, well, what’s the difference in practical terms, between acting like there is no god and acting like there almost certainly isn’t a god? What actions would change? I’m seriously trying to understand where you’re going with this.
No difference at all; it’s a purely philosophical distinction.
Actually, that’s not entirely true; I wouldn’t be having this debate, otherwise. But that’s it.
Incidentally, I am just as likely to laugh at people who swallow religious dogma whole as anyone, including Dio.
Why don’t you tell us an iteration of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you would accept as having a reasonable possibility of existence.
-
A giant ball of spaghetti hovering in the lower atmosphere due to freak atmospheric conditions, mistakenly identified by onlookers as a deity.
-
An alien creature capable of (possibly technologically assisted) superhuman feats, mistakenly identified as a deity.
-
A philosophical concept you like to beat god-squadders over the head with during debates.
Can we accept that monkeys might fly outta my butt? Can we say that the possibility of the existence of god is more or less equal to the Butt Monkey Theory?
Not having seen your butt, I will refrain from comment here. In so saying, I’m not a statistician, but the probability of god existing- in the sense of an all powerful being which thinks of itself as “god”- is probably roughly equal to that of your simian butt-aerobatics team putting in an appearance.
But you did say that denying the existence of god was “a bad idea”. That’s not really true if it’s purely a philosophical disinction with no application in the real world.
You just watch it there, buddy!
You’re a nymph, not a sprite. Sprites are male. Or, rather, they were male, as they are all extinct now, having been hunted and eaten by manticores.
Wow. Just, wow.
I’m sick of all this bullshit anit-manticorism on this website. Most manticores are a peaceful people and they want nothing more than to live with other fey creatures. Some manticores ate sprites, but it was hardly a universal activity.
At no point did I imply that manticores are evil. They were entirely justified in hunting, capturing, enslaving, flaying, raping, eating, and murdering the sprites, and yes they did it in that order. The point is that the sprites started it. That one-way bastard prince they called Oberon would eat all the cashews out of a bowl of mixed nuts, leaving the rest inedible on account of his grubby fingerprints being on him, and think that JUST because he had paid for the nuts and they were in his house and the manticores had come over without invitation or warning and he had eaten the nuts before they arrived it was okay.
Well, the peaceful manticores should have demanded that the sprite-eating manticores change their ways because it made the rest of them look bad. The public face of the manticore is that of the sprite-eating manticore.
There are peaceful manticore. The peaceful manticores were hunted, captured, enslaved, flayed, raped, eaten, and murdered by the warlike manticores to punish them for their insolence. But you, dear, need not fear the manticores, for they have always been at peace with the tree nymphs and will remain at peace so long as you pay your annual tribute of 15 tree nymphs for the manticores to…amuse…themselves with. Also they would like some sort of root-beer-based beverage.
No, silly; it’s the mandrakes that want the root beer.
He said “all possible values of god.” Where is your philosophical justification to deny even the possibility of some god who ran around 10 billion years ago far from us, and who has never even come close? Having no reason to believe in that god is fine, so is believing that this god doesn’t exist. Acting as if this god existed would be asinine. Acting as if it didn’t is reasonable. But claiming you know enough to deny its existence is
My scientific training tells me to treat everything as provisional. Sure the probability that a god exists, anywhere, is significanlty less than that of monkeys flying out of all of our butts simultaneously, but let’s not go acting like strict religionists and pretending to be absolutely certain of stuff where there is no evidence one way or another.
I’ve often said that strong atheists believe there is no god, which is perfectly reasonable, but very, very few say they know for certain there is no god, which is an untenable claim, and that atheists are too rational to make such a claim. Please don’t prove me wrong.
And why should we talk like that about religion when we don’t about anything else as implausible? Why give it more respect than, say, the idea that the Moon landings were a hoax ( which is actually MUCH more plausible since it violates no physical laws ) ?
God, as is typically described is impossible. It violates physical laws. And there’s no evidence at all for it, just empty and contradictory assertions. That’s enough to justify saying that it does not exist.
No, because with God all things are possible, not so with man. Didn’t you get the memo?
Are monkeys flying out of God’s butt? What is their initial velocity upon reaching the outside? Does god miraculously alter his anal sphincter’s shape to exactly conform to the cross sectional view of a monkey?
There are questions that need to be answered, man!
That is one very interesting take on the creation of man, as well as addressing evolution at the same time. Well done!