Topic: The road to the End of Religion: How sex will kill God - page 4. (Read 37219 times)

What a beautiful topic, i will contribuite, certainly.

# 1 - God not exist.

Beliathon you sound like the Oregon school shooter   Are you planning to do some of that stupid shit you are saying here? Please don't do it!!

That's your argument? That's really what you brought to my fucking table?



How shamefully sophomoric. Take that weakass shit back to seventh grade philosophy class where it belongs, kid. This is the internet. You're a goddamn disgrace.

To everyone who say : "no one can prove God's existence", I respond you : "no one can prove men are equals".

Responding in order:

1)  The one "unscientific assumption" is either false or true depending upon the context from which you're examining it.  In a broad, generalized context, it seems to be false.  Not only, as you point out, are there experiments that suggest observation does causally effect physical reality (e.g. by collapsing the wave function), but in a self-apparent sense it seems that physical reality is defined in tandem with observation, i.e. things are what they are when they are perceived as they are.

In an empirical context, the assumption is true.  Any true conclusion derived from empirical exploration necessitates that the assumption is true, else the conclusion can't possibly follow.  We can't explain isolated phenomena in terms of other isolated phenomena unless we control for observation.  In this context, the assumption can be rephrased in a different way:  Instead of assuming "observation doesn't causally effect physical reality," empirical science says "we live in a Positivistic Universe, i.e. a universe wherein physical phenomena have a static nature that is independent of observation, and we can treat them as they are all by themselves."

2)  Science is valid because it must blare its limitations at every turn.  Any scientific conclusion carries a margin-of-error because controlling for observation forces us to use inductive reasoning to make our predictions.  Even from a broader, philosophical perspective, science is valid because it must always acknowledge that certain assumptions are carried which it cannot falsify.  In exchange for the inability to both 1) make conclusions beyond all margin-of-error and 2) explore and conclude upon that which is beyond its scope, it gains specific explanatory power inasmuch as it can formulate working models of specific physical processes. 

As it turns out, this has been incredibly advantageous to us.  In a practical sense, successfully navigate our world through the use of inductive reasoning all the time after perceiving isolated conditions and events in our environment that appear most relevant to us.  In a scientific sense, we can formalize this same approach to learn valuable information about isolated conditions and events that allows us to build a library of knowledge, lending itself to technological development, medical advances, and a better quality of life.

What becomes problematic is when proponents of science misrepresent or misunderstand its limitations so as to use that same library of knowledge to make invalid assertions, e.g. when empirical data is used to conclude upon abstract concepts and principles.  Some things, such as mathematical constructs, are abstract and, despite being real, are not found in physical reality.  We might describe physical systems in terms of these mathematical constructs, but that does not mean that the physical systems themselves are evidence of these constructs.  Broadening the thought, there may be an abstract concept that we call God that can be used to describe and explain all physical phenomena, but that doesn't mean that any or all physical phenomena is evidence of God.

3)  I think it is possible to prove whether a supreme being (God) is logically necessary or unnecessary, but for the reasons aforementioned it is impossible to prove God via empirical evidence.  There could, however, be empirical evidence that suggests or supports the existence of God if it aligns with a pre-existing logical framework in which God has already been deemed necessary.  In the case such a framework exists, then any and all empirical evidence should align with this framework and support it, but the evidence will forever be insufficient proof in and of itself.

It has been expressed for it is one of the Laws of God:

I can guarantee u that God will not die if we had sex. Why would he die...? If he does not want us to have sex he/she has got infinite ways to express that to us.

So, this "one unscientific assumption" turns out to be false (generally), correct?

How can it be "valid" when it starts from a (generally) false premise?
Oh, I see that in formal logic the definition of "valid" states that an argument can have false premises and still be valid.
How convenient for science that it can be based on a falsehood and still claim "validity"!
As a result, scientists can ignore overwhelming evidence by claiming that "more research is needed" before coming to a "conclusion", when in reality there is no possibility in coming to a true conclusion in a valid way if the premise is mistaken!

There is evidence that some part of the personality survives death, some of the time.
Note the 52 points on the near-death site and the case of the dead chess master, among others...
This refutes humanism, defined as the idea that man is the guarantor of all knowledge and reason, and therefore it indicates that either there is no substance to knowledge and reason (i.e. non-humanist atheism), or all knowledge and reason is founded and guarantied by a Supreme being.

The proof of God is not contingent upon any metaphysical conclusion, only that the one evaluating the evidence concludes that knowledge is valid and has substance, and that no cogent rebuttal of these 52+ points (of knowledge) exists. Therefore, it is theoretically possible to prove a Supreme being using logic and empirical evidence.

My definition: A supreme being who is the founder and guarantor of knowledge.
My proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.5300

It can be falsified via other methods, yes.  But by experiment, only indirectly, not directly.  There is no such thing as a quantum mechanical or metaphysical experiment in the directly-observable sense, but there can be evidence that is suggestive of quantum mechanical or metaphysical behavior which cannot be explained in a classical physics context.  But in general, yes.

Actually, this assumption has already been falsified by mathematics and confirmed by recent experiment.

The observation is affected by choices made by the observer, as quantum mechanics seems to teach.

Observers in modern physics truly become participants in their observation, whatever that observation might be.

Source:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/observer.htm

Correct, science is a surefire method of pattern recognition, and it exceeds at this because it makes the blanket assumption that observation does not causally effect what it observes.  This assumption is scientifically unfalsifiable.  In other words, it says, "We're going to concede to this one unscientific assumption in order to make the whole of scientific methodology valid." While this makes it valid, it places an impenetrable upper limit upon scientific exploration, and any concept beyond this limit -- which includes the aforementioned assumption and also all existing mathematical and logical principles upon which scientific theorization is utterly dependent -- cannot be explored by empirical science.  Empirical science and accompanying evidence have no business concluding upon the existence or non-existence of God.  "There is evidence for God" is absurd because there never could be, and "there is no evidence for God, therefore it's silly to believe in God" is equally absurd because evidence is irrelevant, anyway.  There's no evidence for abstract mathematical laws, either, but we believe in them and use them all the time anyway because they are self-consistent, logical constructs.

Religion as a faith-based system cannot explore beyond the upper-limit of scientific methodology, either.  But philosophy, logic, and mathematics can. 

All religions are failed sciences. Religion and science seek the same thing: to explain existence, give us purpose and meaning. Religion just makes up the answers, while science is the only surefire method of pattern recognition.

Believe me, I don't want to offend you but its interesting see anit-God peoples dying! the way they cry at their beds in pain and stress is enough to remind us and them their thoughts. Today, you are young and energetic you can speak any kind of shit but tomorrow when you will have your legs in the grave you will feel and see how empty your life is. In case of an absence of the religion, your children will be free to treat you however they want. No one will help you in crossing the road, as there will be nothing to bind him for doing good deeds, no one will give you a glass of water even. That time, you will never think of the orgasms, you will look for some comfort that is going to remain absence from your life. You wont receive any manifestations that comes from a family system
 

I am really feeling sorry about your approach towards the religion.. actually the kind of culture you want to prevail can only be found in the animals. Do whatever you want to do, wherever you want to do and with anyone you want to do. The Might is right kind of thing will destroy everything. More Orgasms = Complete debacle of already shaking society. By the way we already cannot see a society anywhere in you so called industrialized nations. Everything there is rotating around two things sex and money, no moral values are left. People can be found in conditions of a total intimacy openly in parks, this is something that was observed among the animals only but now we have such people who feel proud for getting indulged in such things.

If your religion is a failure than it does not means that whole of this phenomenon is a failure

TAKE YOUR HERESY ELSEWHERE YOU DIRTY LITTLE HARLOT!

Corinthians 7:3-5

Corinthians 6:18

Matthew 5:28

Thessalonians 4:3-5

Colossians 3:5

Corinthians 6:13

The shitty myths are going strong. One of the shittiest of them is that there isn't any God. A second is that He doesn't have any control. A third is that, since God doesn't exist, He can't be patient and merciful, hoping that as many as possible will be saved.

Smoke a little weed every day, but don't overdo it. Don't legalize weed. Rather, repeal all laws against it. And if anybody ODs on it, his friends and relatives need to pay the hospital that saves him. And if he harms or kills anyone because he is high, "eye for eye; tooth for tooth; hand for hand; life for life."

Woohoo! Congrats everyone on getting this thread 20,000 views! You've all contributed to a world with less superstition and shitty mythos!



Also more orgasms and less violence.



Also death to capitalism!



Smoke weed ever' day! Cops are not your friend.

That's right. If religion were ever going to be obsolete, it would have happened over the thousands of years that have passed us by already.

Graham Hancock and others - Youtube search on "Graham Hancock" - have shown that our civilization, close to worldwide that it might be, is not the first worldwide civilization. Hancock has proven from archaeology that 12,500 years ago there was a worldwide civilization that was more advanced scientifically than ours in some ways.

If God were going to fail from among us, it would have happened long ago. Anti-God people will only destroy themselves.

When religion will ne obsolete : mentally disordered faggots will pop worldwide ; people will have sex younger and younger without being married ; a lot of people will divorce, something that isn't permitted. And since the religion and God are the Truth, they will never disappear.