Logically rationalize God

[mclane]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

[ooo]

It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics).

why? seems like the entropy is ever increasing

[ashlesha]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

I'm not atheist, at least not in a deliberate way (more resigned). Maybe agnostic, something like that.
I'm a wannabe religious person, hence the thread.

[nanashi]

I'm not atheist, at least not in a deliberate way (more resigned). Maybe agnostic, something like that.
I'm a wannabe religious person, hence the thread.

do you want people to respond to and discuss/evaluate/disprove the peoples' replies of suggested possible logical reasons for the existence of a divine?

[Tonatiuh]

To put it simply: the structure of the universe cannot have happened randomly. It is a directed effort (it even goes against the second law of thermodynamics). I assume you're an atheist, could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

Another and in my mind better question is; would another institution make any difference?

[QueenTiger666]

could you provide some evidence as to god's non existence?

That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.

[mclane]

That's not how that works - the burden of proof would be on the person who claimed God exists. You use evidence to prove not disprove.

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

[QueenTiger666]

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.

[mclane]

You always start from the assumption that he doesn't exist, similar to innocent until proven guilty.

I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.

[QueenTiger666]

I already explained. I don't really want to continue this discussion or even interact any more on the forum for now. The forum seems to be experiencing a very low point both in activity and quality of discussion. And it's not due to the drama; there has been worse drama in the past, but things got done and things were explored and discovered. Interaction now mostly consists of unwarranted attacks (often on members that do not deserve them), sycophancy, sophistry, and useless things in general. This issue IMO would require some some drastic measures in order to be resolved.

Think I'm going back to lurking. Bye.

The ultimate rage quit

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If you start from the assumption that God doesn't exist yes. But if you start from the other option it doesn't. The way I see it, it's like saying that the sky doesn't exist. Some people will say "hey, I see clearly that it exist", while a blind person could say that since they do not see it, it must be that it doesn't exist. That I believe is the fundamental difference between an atheist and an agnostic. I've found that pure atheists often have some beef with the +Ni/-Ne element(for some reason, either because it is not valued or in a bad position such as PoLR, ignoring or linked demonstrative, and/or because they experienced some sort of trauma that made them not consider the existance of god a possibility).

Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

[mclane]

Atheism just means that an individual lacks a belief in the existence of gods - as they were at the time of their birth. Whether a person explicitly states a lack of belief in the existence of god is another matter.

Agnosticism however actually does require an individual to make an explicit judgement.

The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

Atheism does not require a belief, essentially.

[mclane]

Atheism does not require a belief, essentially.

Based on the image you posted, only "implicit atheism" (which is the dumbest position of them all as per the image) would meet that requirement.

[Metamorph]

The image you posted is very good, but your writing is a bit nonsensical.

Some people with no opinion seem to be implicit theists, though I think the "babies are atheists" people don't think this is natural. I don't think babies have beliefs in order to lack beliefs. You might as well say plants are atheists (unless you're the rare person who thinks plants have beliefs.)