Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It gets amusing to watch nonbelievers state that ANY alternative hypothesis of creation MUST be more plausible than God, because God is impossible. So an infinity of successive universes, a "spontaneous creation" of everything from nothing for no reason, a black hole...all of these things are more plausible than an Uncaused Cause.

I don't think anyone has said that God is impossible. I think the PPs here would just say God is unlikely.

Then no one is an atheist.

Only people who look at the preponderance of evidence and choose to have faith in some other explanation for our existence besides God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But you can't prove something doesn't exist by failing to prove that it does exist. You just can't. It is like our court system. You can fail to prove someone guilty, but that doesn't mean they are innocent. Or guilty. Just means you haven't proven it.


I'm not saying there's proof the soul doesn't exist. I'm saying you can't prove it exists in the way you can prove love exists. Nor is there evidence that the soul exists the way there's evidence that love exists.

I'm not convinced you can prove love exists. All your study does is prove some people have a higher sense of altruism. Unless your argument would be that altruism is a symptom of love?

Anonymous wrote:There have been many cases of documented out of body experiences that can not be explaned through normal scientific means. If a body and a person's mind can exist in two different physical places, that means they must be connected through a "supernatural" means, ie a soul.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


But you can't prove something doesn't exist by failing to prove that it does exist. You just can't. It is like our court system. You can fail to prove someone guilty, but that doesn't mean they are innocent. Or guilty. Just means you haven't proven it.


I'm not saying there's proof the soul doesn't exist. I'm saying you can't prove it exists in the way you can prove love exists. Nor is there evidence that the soul exists the way there's evidence that love exists.

I'm not convinced you can prove love exists. All your study does is prove some people have a higher sense of altruism. Unless your argument would be that altruism is a symptom of love?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.

I like you, PP!

How do you explain things that can't be explained through science? Do you believe in fate or destiny? Or only in conicidences? When you hear stories from people who have had near death experiences, do you believe there is a scientific explanation for everything?

To me, God is as real as my computer screen or keyboard. I feel it in a way that makes it as tangible and "real" as the love I feel for my children. But I am pretty far out there in a lot of ways. I also believe in soul mates. I know a lot of the scientific types would see me as a lost cause.

Anonymous wrote:


But you can't prove something doesn't exist by failing to prove that it does exist. You just can't. It is like our court system. You can fail to prove someone guilty, but that doesn't mean they are innocent. Or guilty. Just means you haven't proven it.


I'm not saying there's proof the soul doesn't exist. I'm saying you can't prove it exists in the way you can prove love exists. Nor is there evidence that the soul exists the way there's evidence that love exists.