100% humans have called for GOD

[BoilerUp]

I'm sorry to say this, but that is the most bullshit excuse for god existing.

To prove this theory, it would mean that EVERYONE prays to god when in a situation of need. That is just ridiculous, and I can tell you why.

Before I go on though, I have to apologize for anyone I could offend by this next statement. My brother is mentally handicapped, and I have been around many mentally handicapped people because of this, and I hold an extreme amount of empathy for what they have gone through.

The reason is that, anyone with a severe enough mental disability won't have the mental comprehension to understand god in his simplest form. That means that they can't pray to god since they don't know he even exists.

Now, I don't know about you, but I include the severely mentally handicapped as being human, and that right there disproves your 100% "statistic".

[Hardcore Newbie]

Oh shiznat I never even realized that was Kimbo! That's pretty brutal stuff they do, not something I'd go for personally. Though you do get some guys with real martial skill, and that's always entertaining, comparring one skill against another.

my avatar took 20 minutes to make, stretching Brian Peppers face to fit over Kimbos :P

Kimbo had his first sanctioned fight this saturday, and he looked pretty good. He's been training with some of the best mixed martial artists in the world and they're all sying great things about the guy and his work ethic

I love training for MMA tho, it's a very humbling experience and defines the very essence of sport.

[Coelho]

That whole "You can't prove or disprove" argument doesn't make sense to me. It seems like another one of those creationist tactics to put their beliefs on equal grounds. Really, you can't disprove the existence of absolutely anything I can imagine, like say gremlins at the center of the sun, but that doesn't mean they have a 50/50 chance because they can't be proven or disproven.

Well... i know this argument seems a "dirty tactic", but its logically valid. What we call "common sense", which is what says there is not gremlins in the sun, is not an axiom. Its only common sense. What most people thinks its true, or reasonable. But we cant use it as an argument, if it were not based upon concrete proven facts.
So, im using logic until its last consequences, and doing so i conclude we really can disprove (by logic and reason) anything. Then i ask... without using the common sense... if we have not any proof of the existence or non-existence of gremlins at the center of the sun, why does the probability of the existence should be smaller (or greater) then the probability of non-existence?

But like I said, if faith in the non-existence of superman is just a matter of faith, what makes god more valid than superman? Psychologically, I'd say because people feel more justified in their belief when millions of others hold to it as well.
You are quite right that almost nothing can be proven, but that's why we have terms like "accepted theory". It's funny when a lot of creationists say "evolution is only a theory", they think it means evolution is only a hypothesis. Medicine, gravity, quantum physics, pharmaceuticals, economics, and marketing are all just theory.

Yes... logically speaking, the existence of the superman is not more or less valid than the existence of God. Both are matter of belief. Or, lets say, for the believers, the existence of God would be a "very accepted theory", as it explains a lot of things for them.

I suppose the point of using several people to validate a consistant piece of evidence, is that the odds of both (or more) of you hallucinating the same phenomena are an astronomically minute possibility.

In this case, the millions of people who says they have felt the presence of God, or witnessed acts which only could be explained by assuming the existence of God, could be enough proof of the existence of God. If the probability of two people hallucinate the same thing is very small, how about the possibility of millions of people hallucinate the same thing? If you agree that when two people agree about some perception then this perception is real, then you must agree that God is real.
I think i got you...

You see... if we apply logic until its last consequences, possibly nothing remains... i think everything is questionable, so we can keep questioning until we reach the axioms. As the axioms can not be proven, they must be believed. Thats why i think reason and logic are just ways to try justify our beliefs. Cause reason itself cant prove or disprove anything without the help of the axioms, or assumptions.

Peace man, you've provided some good conversation.

You too... its always nice to discuss with someone with different views... :thumbsup:

[Polymirize]

Well... i know this argument seems a "dirty tactic", but its logically valid.

except that, for obviously logical reasons, the burden of proof always resides on the side of the positive claim.

I don't have to prove that the toothfairy doesn't exist. You have to prove that she does.

[Coelho]

except that, for obviously logical reasons, the burden of proof always resides on the side of the positive claim.

I don't have to prove that the toothfairy doesn't exist. You have to prove that she does.

In this case, the millions of people who says they have felt the presence of God, or witnessed acts which only could be explained by assuming the existence of God, could be enough proof of the existence of God. If the probability of two people hallucinate the same thing is very small, how about the possibility of millions of people hallucinate the same thing? If you agree that when two people agree about some perception then this perception is real, then you must agree that God is real.

Does it is a good enough proof?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Well... i know this argument seems a "dirty tactic", but its logically valid. What we call "common sense", which is what says there is not gremlins in the sun, is not an axiom. Its only common sense. What most people thinks its true, or reasonable. But we cant use it as an argument, if it were not based upon concrete proven facts.
So, im using logic until its last consequences, and doing so i conclude we really can disprove (by logic and reason) anything. Then i ask... without using the common sense... if we have not any proof of the existence or non-existence of gremlins at the center of the sun, why does the probability of the existence should be smaller (or greater) then the probability of non-existence?

For the simple reason that in respect to all imaginary things, consistantly unseen by human beings, we do not give credence to something which never had evidence for its existence in the first place.

Yes... logically speaking, the existence of the superman is not more or less valid than the existence of God. Both are matter of belief. Or, lets say, for the believers, the existence of God would be a "very accepted theory", as it explains a lot of things for them.

Of course it explains a lot of things, people form a primitive era saw a complex universe with so many things unexplainable. So they said, "well lets explain everything! There's an invisible diety up in the sky that created the universe and all the rules therein", and with that simple assumption everything fits into that hypothesis.

In this case, the millions of people who says they have felt the presence of God, or witnessed acts which only could be explained by assuming the existence of God, could be enough proof of the existence of God. If the probability of two people hallucinate the same thing is very small, how about the possibility of millions of people hallucinate the same thing?If you agree that when two people agree about some perception then this perception is real, then you must agree that God is real.

Ah, but millions of people aren't having the same hallucination, they are having the same delusion. Big difference. And when those millions are conditioned from birth to believe in the delusion, and have those beliefs reinfoced by their community, the odds of them having the same delusion are 100% likely.

Besides, most people in Europe believed in Zeus, Poseidon, Oden, does their unified and long-standing belief validate the blacksmith and king of the gods? What about the indians believing in Ghanesh, or the Japanese believing for thousands of years that every rock has a soul. The Egyptians and Ra, the Native Americans and the deification of nature.

I think i got you...

Not quite

You see... if we apply logic until its last consequences, possibly nothing remains... i think everything is questionable, so we can keep questioning until we reach the axioms. As the axioms can not be proven, they must be believed. Thats why i think reason and logic are just ways to try justify our beliefs. Cause reason itself cant prove or disprove anything without the help of the axioms, or assumptions.

I've heard this before, the claim that all theory, evidence, and beliefs must be based on interpreting everything to match up with your presupposition. This is possibly the biggest logical theist fallacy, as anything and everything works when you interpret everything to match up with what you already assume. An objective and logical researcher looks for consistant relationships, and consistantly observable results, then devises a theory.

[Coelho]

Of course it explains a lot of things, people form a primitive era saw a complex universe with so many things unexplainable. So they said, "well lets explain everything! There's an invisible diety up in the sky that created the universe and all the rules therein", and with that simple assumption everything fits into that hypothesis.

Well... our explanations today are more ingenious, more mathematical, and yet explains nothing. For example, in the old days they could say a rock falls because its the Will of God that rocks fall. It doesnt explain much. Well, and today? We say that the Earth have mass, and it makes the space-time around it become curved, so the directest way for the rock in the space-time is to follow a falling path, so it falls. But we dont know why does matter curves the space, or why does the matter must follow the directest way in the space-time. So, we just change the place of the unknown things. Why does matter curves space, or matter follows the directest path? I know why... because thats the Will of God.

Ah, but millions of people aren't having the same hallucination, they are having the same delusion. Big difference. And when those millions are conditioned from birth to believe in the delusion, and have those beliefs reinfoced by their community, the odds of them having the same delusion are 100% likely.

Besides, most people in Europe believed in Zeus, Poseidon, Oden, does their unified and long-standing belief validate the blacksmith and king of the gods? What about the indians believing in Ghanesh, or the Japanese believing for thousands of years that every rock has a soul. The Egyptians and Ra, the Native Americans and the deification of nature.

Well... i believe every people, from different cultures, can percieve the existence of some "superior being", or "energy", or whatever, that they identify as being one (or some) deities. The nature of this deities will vary with the people, for example, the japaneses, mystical by nature, will find "God" everywhere (even rocks). Yet the greeks, human-directed as they were, will find "God" in the acts of men, so their gods are so "human".
For me, there is "something" great, "out there", that we humans can percieve, each one in its own way, that i call "God". Another people can call it another names, but im sure we are talking about much the same thing.

It is not. General acceptance does not justify proof, the only way to prove that God is real is to observe God and confirm it's nature to be true to what religion teaches. I don't think this will ever happen. We can't say that God does not exist, but we can say that there is absolutely no proof of it's existence so far, it is purely conceptual.

Ok... what you would say its a proper observation of God? How much people claim they feel the presence of God? Only because a thing was not observed into a scientific laboratory under controlled conditions does not mean this thing does not exist...

[bong_man]

100%? i guess i'm not human so, i was brought up athiest, and i refuse to even say god i do say oh your god sometimes tho haha

[sonic titan]

I didn't read the thread, but if you say god put the marijuana here for you to smoke and you don't feel bad because of it. Why should I feel bad for not believing in god and all that mess? Because according to you, he already knew I wasn't going to believe him and I have no worries. Blah blah blah show me proof.

[fsunoles]

This is ill all religons talked about people just like you all who down the power of GOD. It's crazy how all the great books are a timeline of the world.Everything that is being said on this forum is what the almighty said would happen in the last days.