God does not exist

If you look at it from the scientific perspective it's even stupider than the FE theory

i did not evolve from an ape, God put me here.

haa. I hope your kidding. Evolution happens. There is proof

How does this pertain to the discussion of the Flat Earth?

shut up. The earth is round. that has already been established

Really?  When?

I think over 70% of people on this forum do not believe in God...

Really?  When?

1492. thats when....

How was earth created? from the big bang? then what events led to this big bang that made it happen? and what happened before that.

This is following on from a discussion in another thread where i summised that something must always occur to trigger our exhistance, and something in turn must have triggered that... When you think about it in this light then "God" must have created us...however then u must also ask...well what created God?

There is no answer, i personally don't believe in "God" as religions would have us believe, a powerful sob of energy who shat us out one day? possibly...

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Really?  When?

1492. thats when....

The year Columbus set sail to go around the Flat Earth?  How does that prove it's round?

1492. thats when....

Haha... amazing.  Usually REers suggest that the ability to travel in a straight line all the way around the world is proof that the world is round.  I used to think that nothing can be more wrong until I saw this post... not only did everybody already believe the world to be round in 1492, but Columbus didn't even sail all the way around!

Anyway, this topic is only incidentally FE-related, so it's moving.

all people who think the earth is flat are just plain ignorant

You can't prove something you hold to be true, yet we are ignorant?

This is how it all started:

If you look at it from the scientific perspective it's even stupider than the FE theory

God is omnipotent whereas science is only an exception away from being illogical.

How does that claim to say that God does not exist?  Now, I'm sure you can believe that God does not exist, but that is a different matter entirely.

If you look at it from the scientific perspective it's even stupider than the FE theory

Agreed.

If you look at it from the scientific perspective it's even stupider than the FE theory

I wouldn't say that. The existence of a god in general isn't contradictory to any scientific evidence. There may have been a god that caused the Big Bang. There may not have been.

As stated before, there's the question of "what made God?", but there's also the question of "what caused the Big Bang?" Somewhere down the line, surely, there must have been some "first event".

The fact that anything exists at all is mind-boggling. Why isn't there just nothing?

Really?  When?

In the 50's and 60's.

Quote

If you look at it from the scientific perspective it's even stupider than the FE theory

I wouldn't say that. The existence of a god in general isn't contradictory to any scientific evidence. There may have been a god that caused the Big Bang. There may not have been.

As stated before, there's the question of "what made God?", but there's also the question of "what caused the Big Bang?" Somewhere down the line, surely, there must have been some "first event".

The fact that anything exists at all is mind-boggling. Why isn't there just nothing?

But God can't be contradictory to any conceivable scientific evidence. Does that make it rational to believe in?

No, it also doesnt make it irrational.  It makes it a matter of faith.

Usually REers suggest that the ability to travel in a straight line all the way around the world is proof that the world is round.  

Hey ...

haa. I hope your kidding. Evolution happens. There is proof

Proof is only a widely-accepted opinion, don't you know that?

Unless said proof is mathematical, because then it would not be widely-accepted opinion, but rather mathematical fact.

Unless said proof is mathematical, because then it would not be widely-accepted opinion, but rather mathematical fact.

You forget Kurt Godel.
...
AND, in your given case, it's a widely-accepted opinion among living mathematicians.

You forget Kurt Godel.

No sir; you forget him.  He never said that proof isn't really proof.

Sometimes when enormous coincidences happen (I get these quite a lot), it seems a little more likely that there's someone pulling the cosmic strings. Not an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe though, there are too many glaring logical and philosophical holes there.

I think it possible that what we might have is more of a "local" god if that makes any sense. A fallible, physical manipulator of the planet, or of (some of) our lives, with questionable moral scruples and a penchant for sadistic pranks. In the words of Depeche Mode, "I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour".

This is pretty much idle conjecture though, I generally count myself an atheist, because deities on the level that most religious folk believe in are clearly pure myth.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

You forget Kurt Godel.

No sir; you forget him.  He never said that proof isn't really proof.

Um, incompleteness theorems?

This argument reminds me of a cartoon I saw; two people are arguing over the shape of a pillar; one says it's round, the other says it's square.  The pillar is Law.  That's what we are doing here.

Um, incompleteness theorems?

How do the incompleteness theorems render any proof invalid?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

Um, incompleteness theorems?

How do the incompleteness theorems render any proof invalid?

1)  You seem to closed-minded.
2)  You seem belligerent for belligerent's sake.
3)  I love using numbered lists (when did this happen?).

Ok, wiki the incompleteness theorems, read them, think about what I said, read them again, and THEN if you are still lost, ask me again.  I'm not going to do all of the thinking for you; sometimes you have to do it for yourself.

Ok, wiki the incompleteness theorems, read them, think about what I said, read them again, and THEN if you are still lost, ask me again.  I'm not going to do all of the thinking for you; sometimes you have to do it for yourself.

No.  I've read about them before in some depth; thanks for your rather infurating presumption of my ignorance.

My understanding of those theorems is that they put limits on what can be proved.  Rather, they guarantee that consistent systems that can be interpreted to model the natural numbers will contain true statements that cannot be proved.

Nowhere do they state that any proofs are invalid.

You brought up Godel seemingly, to me, to imply that mathematical proofs are not really proofs, but merely reflect the consensus of mathematicians.  It's quite clear that that's not what Godel's theorems are about.

What is your interpretation of the theorems?