Is There Life Elsewhere in the Universe? Is There a God?

[Siamanto]

The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

I agree with you that any attempt to prove - or disprove - the existence - or non-existence - of God is of utmost absurdity. In fact, it assumes that belief systems can be reduced to logically constructed systems of thoughts.
Ironically, those who claim that "scientific" thinking invalidates the idea of a God, usually ignore that even the Mathematical System cannot be logically constructed or validated. That is the beauty of the fascinating work of Godel - a Mathematician!

You either believe in God or you believe there is no God.

Why is God always in the singular form? How about Polytheism?

[ArmoBarbi]

We are using the Western version, which supposedly has one.

[Anonymouse]

I agree with you that any attempt to prove - or disprove - the existence - or non-existence - of God is of utmost absurdity. In fact, it assumes that belief systems can be reduced to logically constructed systems of thoughts.
Ironically, those who claim that "scientific" thinking invalidates the idea of a God, usually ignore that even the Mathematical System cannot be logically constructed or validated. That is the beauty of the fascinating work of Godel - a Mathematician!


Why is God always in the singular form? How about Polytheism?

For the sake of simplicity and brevity I used God. But sure, for the pagans' sake we will throw in Gods out there.

By the way thanks for clarifying and further adding on to my thought.

[Siamanto]

We are using the Western version, which supposedly has one.

I did not know that Greeks and Romans were not "Western!" Thank you for the clarification!

[ArmoBarbi]

I did not think that I had to say "current". I thought THAT much was understood.

I wont be sarcastic with you about it though.

[winoman]

I don't think its possible for science to disprove Santa Clause either. Luckily for him though - belief in him does not preclude belief in other dieties - so all religions can't be right can they? No they can't. And it seems simple enough to see that more are incorect then correct - obvious it seems....so instead of casting ones lot (and all the belief. observations, restrictions and other baggage that it entails) - when in fact it is much more likely then not untrue (I mean how do we assign a probability of one particualr religious belief having more chance of being true then any other eh?) - so better to just save yourself the hassle (and be less the fool) and choose to remain utterly skeptical - disbelieving as it were - or at least accepting that any proposition concerning diety and such (lacking proof) is equally as valid (or absurd) as any other (particularly when each and every one has been invented by man and man seems to have a track record of inadequacy and (at least) incompleteness concerning his/her ideas and I'll easily and very confidently cast my lot in the belief against category - besides so are all of you - belief against all the other beliefs besides ones own - so lets just accept that we are all wrong eh?

[ArmoBarbi]

I am not wrong. I simply am not able to know the whole picture. I dont hold any beliefs to contradict whatever the truth may be.

You may say that this is untrue considering there MAY be a diety and I reject that idea, but I am ignoring that simply because I am confident enough in my conviction that there is no diety)

Yes, anything is possible unless its not a contradiction in terms in theory blah blah.... so I am forced to include the possibility, but the chance for any diety to exist is soooooo small in my mind that I am not gonna include it outside of making this reference.

[rabinovich]

Ironically, those who claim that "scientific" thinking invalidates the idea of a God, usually ignore that even the Mathematical System cannot be logically constructed or validated. That is the beauty of the fascinating work of Godel - a Mathematician!

"the beauty of the fascinating work of Godel" lies in the fact that no formal theory (strong and full enough to support theory of numbers) can be used to prove/disprove every sentence in that theory. Another "beauty" is that the consistency of a (strong enough) formal theory cannot be proven within the limits of that theory.

As you see, the above in no way means that "Mathematical System cannot be logically constructed or validated", it only means that you can never get along with one formal theory to solve all your questions, you will need further refinements and generalizations to prove more intricate facts. That's all.

I cannot see the link with God or his existence.

[rabinovich]

A question to beleivers: have you guys met the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves)?

here, read some: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Another point of agreement is that IPU "raptures" socks, which accounts for their otherwise inexplicable tendency to disappear. Socks raptured from your laundry are allegedly a "sign" of favor from IPU — or it could be disfavor, depending on who is asked, or perhaps upon which socks are raptured. Skeptics might suggest one seek a deeper understanding by looking under the washing machine's agitator for "raptured" garments.

[winoman]

I am not wrong. I simply am not able to know the whole picture. I dont hold any beliefs to contradict whatever the truth may be.

You may say that this is untrue considering there MAY be a diety and I reject that idea, but I am ignoring that simply because I am confident enough in my conviction that there is no diety)

Yes, anything is possible unless its not a contradiction in terms in theory blah blah.... so I am forced to include the possibility, but the chance for any diety to exist is soooooo small in my mind that I am not gonna include it outside of making this reference.

I think we are in basic agreement on this one.

As the list of possible diety scenarios runs on out to infinity - with nothing in the natural world indicating a preference for one view over another - then just how can one choose? And it seems to me that not choosing - just accepting that there are and will remain unknowns - is perhaps the most judicious choice.

I also fail to see any sense in debating atrributes of possible (likely ficticious - certainly unproven) spiritual (or otherwise) worlds apart form the natural world/physical world that imposes itself on our senses. Seems to me we have enough issues (poverty, war, hunger, disease etc) - and enough to be concerned with in such to not have to worry and argue about whose heaven/nirvana etc is best and what not...and certainly to disparage scientific knowledge of this world/universe based upon this idea that science does not tell us things about these various hypothetical spiritual worlds - is nto - what I would copnsider to be - very much of a valid critque at all...