Listen to me. You have to consider the possibility that God doesn't like you, he never wanted you. In all probability, He hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen... Fuck damnation. Fuck redemption. We are God's unwanted children, with no special place and no special attention, and so be it. We are the all singing, all dancing, crap of the world.
That's a great link. It really sums up my beliefs. I especially agree with the part about "evil" towards the end. The universe has always had the physics necessary to help us create medicine, technology, etc. It is only our own human nature to sometimes use these things in the wrong way. So in essence, the world is not inherently evil. The world exists in a universe with the physics capable of giving us just about anything we want. What we do with those laws of physics is entirely man's doing and not some inherent evil nature of existence in general.
There is going to be a show on String Theory starting Oct 28 - Nov 4th. I am sure that God will come up, as that "sells" more seats. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ nitro
That's the point aphie, no one has any proof of anything about God. Now, the atheists aren't idiots -- far from it -- and they can, from what I have seen (and it's a lot), easily handle all the arguments that theists throw up. So, ultimately, believing in God becomes a personal matter, as there isn't anything in the realm of human knowledge that would compel a person to one side or the other. As I said, in a few words: it's a choice. I wasn't arguing the actual Pascal's Wager, but a refined version of it; call it Alfonso's Wager. The point where Pascal falls down is that he was asking you to only wager against Christianity (or one particular religion). But there are many, many various religions. So betting on the basis of believing in one of them so that you don't go to hell is no insurance policy at all, because you might've chosen the wrong religion. My wager is much more based on the deistic model -- a term I had thought most were familiar with, but I guess not -- in which there isn't some eternal damnation for disbelieving or believing something else. It's doesn't even have to be the case that you will "miss out" on an "afterlife", if there is one, for disbelieving; I mean, it can be that, but it doesn't have to be. Most of the benefits are available to you in the "here and now". Of course, an atheist could say that he has access to all those benefits without having to believe in God. I'd say he's wrong. I'd say he can come close, but he's settling for a portion of the prize when he can have the whole thing -- and the best part is, it doesn't cost him anything to do it! (Except maybe his intellectual pride! And that's a good thing!)
No doubt God will come up. But the point is that God doesn't, or doesn't have to, have anything to do with it. Let's say scientists come up with a super string theory that can describe the origins of the universe perfectly, or at least far better than we understand it now. Some people are under the impression that this means the death of God. And it's understandable, because the majority of the 'enlightened scientific atheists' love to think that all theists do is believe in a 'God of the gaps'; so close the 'gaps' and the need for God goes away. That may be the case for some believers, but it's really got nothing do with God. As I said, in terms of fancy footwork, it's a simple matter for the theist to move God one step back and claim that God is responsible for the super strings; and if scientists can explain what causes super strings then God becomes the created that, too. But again, these arguments miss the point completely.
I think it's interesting that ET's most energetic atheists, like axeman, Stu, FPC and Gekko -- who throw a fit at the slightest mention of the 'G word' -- are noticably silent on this thread; and that's because it challenges the entire superstructure of atheism, that's it's "the most rational" philosophical postion to hold.
Rational... perhaps if you knew a thing or two about the Godel theorem you would not be so sure that you know what rational really means. I believe that the most logical and safest option is that of an agnostic. And why do you need God, anyway?