If you were "consistent" in your beliefs you would admit that your omega hypothesis offers nothing to the debate. When you make a strong case for emergence you have to logically conclude that also no god makes a lot of sense - if not you are neither honest nor rigid.

Walk the walk.

If you ask me if I agree with this statement:

Its valid to consider the probability of the Omega Point God existing to be equal to the probability that no god exist

I would say yes.

What would you say tame_dueces(or anyone else for that matter)?

That you are dabbling in probabilities yet you have no data to assert your statement. Emergence is a solid empirical concept - stating that something "could be" does not make this solidity rub off on your hypothetical.

You are also conflating four distinct questions:

1. Could there be a god?
2. Is there a god?
3. Is there any evidence of god?
4. Do you believe in god?

(Anyone that wonders: yes 2 can be answered differently than 4 and yet be consistent)

The problem I have with atheism is it pretends questions 1-3 don't exist. Question 3 is why I am a theist. It seems to me this universe is moving in a particular direction, if gods don't exist they will soon.

Its not beyond the realm of possibility for humans to create life or entire universes.

Sorry I never got your version of the atheist rulebook.

Why should the idea that there "could" be a god stop anyone from becoming/being an atheist? That does not even make sense per the logic you suggest in this thread.

This is pretty far out reasoning which I feel makes assumptions that are seriously flawed. Are you trying to completely redefine GOD? Could you please tell the forum what kind of God you believe in to help us understand where exactly you are coming from. Are you a Christian?

Doesn't that make your belief that God doesn' exist a matter of faith? I mean you must have some evidence to believe God does not exist over the existence of the Omega Point God.

If you don't consider the existence of the Omega Point God to be as plausible as the belief that God does not exist, you must have some reason. Perhaps you can point out a flaw in the Omega Point God hypothesis?

If you can't and still maintain a belief that God doesn't exist, thats belief is founded on something shakier than faith. You believe God does not exist without evidence for no particular reason or motivation.

Now you want to talk about question 1 when we were talking about question 3? And you say I'm conflating?

I'm a Christian, but for the moment I'm arguing against atheism on the assumption of the existence(or possible existence) of the God described in my thread, "The Emergence of the Omega Point God".

I got another God coming down the pipe so brace yourselves.

It can, but













it doesn't have to. I would guess (I have no figures, just judging by the posts of various atheists in this forum) that the kind of atheist you are (constantly) addressing in your posts is an extreme minority, if indeed there are any such atheists here.

Your "omega point" is _not_ evidence of god and has nothing to do with question 3 - so you switched questions and not me. No need to get delusions of grandeur.

There are too many fallacies in the OP to respond to all of them but:

1. Science is not a monolithic block that is either all true or all false. Ideas we have today could be correct, incomplete or maybe even totally wrong but something being wrong in one field usually will have no effect on others.
2. One of the best features of science is that it can be almost correct. I have no idea what string theory will look like in 30 years, but I know F=ma will still work.
3. You don't seem to get what gravitons are and quantum mechanics and general relativity are not mutually exclusive, they are obv both correct.

Faith: Belief in an idea which is not founded on empirical evidence.

So I believe in the big bang, or evolution, or etc. because evidence has been collected and analyzed to develop these models, and the predictions which they make have been upheld by further discovered evidence. This is not faith.

If I believed that alien souls were imprisoned in my body by the cosmic warlord Xemu, and could not support this with facts or even give a testible definition of soul, then that would be faith.

I think a good alternative way to understand faith is: faith beliefs are those beliefs which could not possibly be held if the collective sum of human knowledge were somehow erased. In other words, if we woke up tomorrow and magic robots had destroyed all books and computers and erased all our memories, in some number of years we could return to and rediscover atomic theory. We could not return to any existing religion.

that's because you understand nothing about the big bang theory/evolution ect. It's like saying "i don't understand math, therefore it is wrong"

we may not return to a religion exactly, but the evolution of religion in early humans is natural and would almost definitley revolve around the same ideas of salvation and immortality ect

What big bang do you believe in or do you believe in both?

A) The theory which states the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

B) Or the belief some primordial atom or singularity exploded creating the matter and anti matter which then formed into our universe as we currently see it.

One statement is faith based, the other isn't. I believe in both.... but I'm not so arrogant that I feel compelled to deny a point of faith.

Let me rephrase:

"You pwned me, and I will find any excuse possible not to anwer your obviously superior arguments."

I did not say there would not be religions. You're right, fear of death is human nature and we make up all manner of silly things to comfort ourselves.

This idea of scientific factual belief is a bit flawed; obviously the closer you scrutinize a theory or the areas the theory is fuzzy the less likely the theory is closer to the physical truth. Do I believe quantum theory is a perfect way to describe matter and energy? No, but it's pretty good. Do I believe that we understand the beginnings of the universe perfectly? No, but the big bang is on the right track. Obviously our current theories break down as we extrapolate back toward the Planck epoch, and there are things we will never know. I am not arguing that. I am arguing against the "science is really the same as religion because they both believe things" argument, because it is dishonest at best and ignorant at worst. If this isn't the line you were heading down, my apologies; but this is certainly the line the OP was heading down.

I believe Trogdor is saying we would create new religions and they would essentially be based on the same ideas as the religions we see today. I think his point is it doesn't really matter if the names and some minor details change. I think that point nullifies your argument.

LOL wut. My point is that we can return to "matter is composed of atoms", but we cannot return to "Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit wants us to love him/them and not have gay sex and not eat pork or shrimp &tc." or whatever other religious claims that exist today. The fact that we will invent new mythologies only bolsters my point.

I think the OP's point is science believes in things until such time as they are disproved and so does religion. Maybe he just hangs out with string theorists.

Not have gay sex and not eat pork would probably come back if we were thrown all the way back to the stone age. Yahweh and Jesus would get different names but so would Gravity and Force.

Wat? Scientists believe in random things until they are disproved?

I don't think anyone is saying scientist believe in random things. People have reasons for believing in the things they believe. The Pope might believe in Catholicism because he preceives a certain moral elegance in its ideas. Brian Greene might believe in string theory because he preceives mathmatical elegance in its formulas.