Trauma

I agree with most of that, although your wording is questionable, along with a couple of theories.

In my own argument:
There might in fact be a diety, but why does it have to be all-powerful, omnipotent, and perfect?

A diety could also mean many things, too many people imagine a human male, thanks to Christianity.

__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño

The Unfan

I agree!

Lets look up what a deity is...
We've already thrown out number as GOD is an all powerful being, which makes no sense.

For number 2 we'll need to define "god" and "goddess" which I'll get to later.

Number three doesn't mean much. Basically any person or thing that is hyped as being good or powerful enough is a deity. This is a pretty ignorable definition as far as creationism is concerned unless you want to discuss how all life came from second generation console gaming systems.

So what does god mean? Time to ask Webster again...

Number one we just debunked. All powerful is nonsensical.

Number two denotes is "believed" to. This wording is very iffy and could easily mean "anything that you want to be a god is a god." Once we get into the "specifically" part we further this idea. "One controlling a particular aspect of reality" literally means that since I am controlling a message on the internet which is real and thus part of reality that I am a god, by this token there are a lot of gods. The second definition doesn't help said stance any.

The third definition is right on par with it. If I hold myself to great value I am a god. I am a god twice. Hooray me.

The fourth is even wackier. Hitler was a god.

In short, the best conclusive definition we can come up with for deity is "something of value and or power that may or may not be worshiped." This is ultimately no help as it neither proves nor debunks the intelligent design theory, just that if something greater did make us that it could be considered a deity or a god, but by definition is not God. God does not exist, a god could possibly exist or have existed.

On the other hand I disbelieve in the theory of intelligent design. As of right now science is pointing more toward abiogenesis and evolution being more plausible. That is not to say that intelligent design has been disproven, rather that microevolution from non-intelligent (not quite lifeless, the term abiogenesis is quite misleading) lead into macroevolution. In either case scientists are still on the search and I'm sure something will come about sooner or later.
If I'm going to worship it she better have some damn fine feet.

cardboard adolescent

Intelligent design seems stupid to me because, sure, we can see and think, but would an intelligent being really have made us so stupid and weak? C'mon now.

Trauma

The Unfan, you have some good theories, but you really can't "prove" that God is anything at all.

The fact of the matter is that they either exist or not, and beyond that, every idea used in your logic, let alone the words themselves could all be warped creations of some reality that lies outside of our lives manufactured by this entity.

As long as you're in a cage, you can never really know your captor; as long as the laws and boundaries of this world apply to you, there is no possible way you could begin to define what limits apply to something in a different setting, let alone one that you haven't explored, seen, heard of, or conceived.

But hell, you sure could give this aforementioned diety a run for their money in semantics.

__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño

The Unfan

Thats sort of what happens when God isn't anything at all.

I would have never guessed that.
The English language was created by humans. Research some history.

I can define the limits of both God and (a) god. In fact, my last post was dedicated to just that. Please read it before posting back with your nonsense.

If those different settings are based on illogical fantasy based ideas than you're correct. However, the writer of said piece of fiction can define those traits. If those said settings are realistically plausible than logic, rationale, and fact can define them just fine. The human mind is capable of functioning with rationality, knowledge, and common sense and thus can reason out that setting.

Yeah, that happens when you're a god twice.

Trauma

First off, stop being a facetious, semi-cynical asshole.

If you had taken any time to read my post, I said you can't define the limits of a diety, because in the boundaries of humanity, there are certain factors pertaining to such beings that can't be explored.

No matter how much you deny any possibility of a god, you can never really know, reality prevents you from fully researching the topic, and it very well could be a god that refuses to be discovered by humanity at all.
It could do this with any creations previously given to man and taken for granted: free will, intelligent thought, externalized sense, or physical limitations.

Whatever ethic you propose to deny the existence of a diety might conflict with laws and boundaries that are present in a seperate medium where reality is actually present, and that diety lives, or functions by (if not alive).


Being a human, you do not know if the human mind is capable of functioning with rationality, knowledge, and common sense.

Since your opinion is biased based on limited perception and your spectrum of thought is entirely subject to the creation of any diety in the first place, this argument is flawed.

Twice on one definition and once on another, out of four definitions, makes you three-fourths of a god.

__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño

The Unfan

...oojay?

Trauma

Don't you fucking compare me to that closed-minded, cynical, couch potato, right wing conservative, no sex acquiring asshole.

Edit: Also, if I was, the only thing said would be, "There is a God, He is great, and I can kill you if you disagree."

__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño

The Unfan

Other than I actually explored those factors with my post. Its like the bullet hit your foot in slow motion.

No it doesn't. Science exists for a reason. We can come up with theories and test them. Scientists have yet to simulate intelligent design and have yet to find anything that supports the claim. Alternatively they haven't disproven it yet so you're still in the clear.
Invisible pink unicorn?

See my argument about the fairy tale world. I'm not sure what kind of Mike Mignola ass universe this proposed deity lives in but its not realistic.

enemyat_thesix

The moment you "prove" God his existence becomes irrelevant; he ceases to be. If God can be proved--that is, explained and defined by man's sciences and technology--he is not God.

Religion is based on faith, pure and simple. You either believe in it, or you don't. It is not a science; it is not based on facts.

__________________
www.myspace.com/arqon
www.myspace.com/xlaststrawx