Noah's Ark

#201
#201
rjd970 said:
Exactly why I even think the term "atheist" is meaningless. We don't have a special word for non-belief in santa, bigfoot, unicorns, or astrology. Why for God?
Click to expand...

Bigfoot exist.

Ever been to Alabama. They are at Walmart.

:)

Sorry. Had to lighten the mood
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#205
#205
KingNick865 said:
You're equating a scientific discovery that was made based on prior evidence with the existence of a supreme being, which has no real evidence of existence.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

There was prior mathematical evidence of the particle. But nobody really knew. The experiment proved said evidence was correct. Even if the experiment resulted in no particle being found, it would still have been considered a success because it would have gone a long way to prove it didn't exist.

That is the underlying difference here. In the realm of using actual physical evidence to prove something, absolutes are rare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#206
#206
MercyPercy said:
Because I've neither seen or read something of substance that would support their existence.
Click to expand...

Well my argument to you is " you haven't seen or read anything that proves God doesn't exist".

But let's start with something simple-

Pitcher plant. Ever seen one?
 
#208
#208
Obsessed said:
Well my argument to you is " you haven't seen or read anything that proves God doesn't exist".

But let's start with something simple-

Pitcher plant. Ever seen one?
Click to expand...

This is my problem with that type of argument, and why I think it's a bit of a cop out.

Have you seen anything to prove 100% that Santa isn't real? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Unicorns?

The best we can do is form conclusions based on our knowledge and understanding of the world around us(usually this means through science).
 
#209
#209
MercyPercy said:
This is my problem with that type of argument, and why I think it's a bit of a cop out.

Have you seen anything to prove 100% that Santa isn't real? Ghosts? Bigfoot? Unicorns?

The best we can do is form conclusions based on our knowledge and understanding of the world around us(usually this means through science).
Click to expand...

And my argument is science can't prove or disprove everything. Sometimes faith is all you have.
 
#210
#210
Obsessed said:
And my argument is science can't prove or disprove everything. Sometimes faith is all you have.
Click to expand...

Ask science how life begins.

It would seem that life comes from life. Life reproduces but does not generate from dead material.
If aliens brought life here where did they get it?
So in a place where life is everywhere we have no idea where it came from. It had to start somewhere. Wtf science? Where did it start?




Take your time with that one. I'll wait
 
#212
#212
orangeslice13 said:
Ask science how life begins.

It would seem that life comes from life. Life reproduces but does not generate from dead material.
If aliens brought life here where did they get it?
So in a place where life is everywhere we have no idea where it came from. It had to start somewhere. Wtf science? Where did it start?




Take your time with that one. I'll wait
Click to expand...

Slice. You getting too step for a Saturday night my man. I'll need time.
 
#213
#213
orangeslice13 said:
Ask science how life begins.

It would seem that life comes from life. Life reproduces but does not generate from dead material.
If aliens brought life here where did they get it?
So in a place where life is everywhere we have no idea where it came from. It had to start somewhere. Wtf science? Where did it start?




Take your time with that one. I'll wait
Click to expand...

I'll probably regret taking the bait here, but here it goes....

Nobody knows for sure.
 
#215
#215
rjd970 said:
I'll probably regret taking the bait here, but here it goes....

Nobody knows for sure.
Click to expand...

Nope. Its not a trap.

Just pointing out that science can't answer everything.
We know life began even though we can't prove it.
Some of us know God exists even though it can't be scientificly proven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#216
#216
Orange_Crush said:
Obviously, I believe that Christianity is right.

The point in discussion is whether you dealt a crippling blow to Christianity by judging it with nihilistic philosophy.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
I didn't ask if you thought Christianity is right. I kind of gathered that.

I asked if you believe Christianity is right....so it makes sense? The reason I am asking is it would explain where our difference fundamentally is. In every other facet of what we believe something has to make sense first, then we determine it is right....not assume it is right first then say it makes sense afterward.
Click to expand...

We would not disagree in that. However, one's inability to make sense of something does not determine its truth. Thus, the fallacy of incredulity is just that-- a fallacy.
 
#217
#217
MercyPercy said:
I don't believe in god, bigfoot, santa, or unicorns. I wouldn't consider any to be religious beliefs, simply the absence of belief in those things.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways. The reference was to the problem someone had with religious people-- making religious statements about the existence of God as fact. Thus, in that context, any statement about God would be a religious statement.
 
#218
#218
rjd970 said:
No.

I believe all evidence put forward by believers is inadequate. Come with something better and I'm open. To believe something that fantastic the proof needs to be fantastic...for I am a serious doubting Thomas.

Inevitably it always comes down to "faith" and reasons why fantastic evidence isn't possible.
Click to expand...

Personally, I really don't lose much sleep about what you believe, nor any more of this actually. But when you make or infer definitive statements, I'll jump in.

So, you've gone from making definitive statements and inferring definitively that the Christian God is a farce, to stating that it's impossible to disprove Him. You seriously seem to be a bit confused.
 
#219
#219
orangeslice13 said:
Nope. Its not a trap.

Just pointing out that science can't answer everything.
We know life began even though we can't prove it.
Some of us know God exists even though it can't be scientificly proven.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out nobody knows, including the believers. We do know, for a fact, that the basic building blocks of life are not alive and abundant in the universe. Even basic amino acids and proteins are not alive, yet are an important part of life as we know it. Just because science can't explain every step between A and Z doesn't mean faith can, or that reasonable physically explainable regression to fill in the gaps are wrong.

Questions of how, and specific mechanisms involved are largely debated, but it did indeed happen because here we are, and it can be reasonably explained without the guiding hand of a creator.
 
#220
#220
KingNick865 said:
You're equating a scientific discovery that was made based on prior evidence with the existence of a supreme being, which has no real evidence of existence.
Click to expand...

I am answering the invention that, logically, you are supposed to disbelieve something until it is proven.

And that's what it is-- an invention.

The Higgs Boson was a mathematical addition that had no evidence to support it. It was just added because if they didn't, matter would not have mass. So they believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven. They took it on faith because there were reasons indicating that it should be there.

Dark Matter was proposed and believed in before there was one shred of proof that it existed. They believed in it because, without it, there wasn't enough matter in the universe to account for the gravity we observe.

It was an unproven, believed because of inference.

The idea trying to be pawned off on me is that, logically, I have to disbelieve something before it's proven. Poppycock. It was a logical rule invented for convenience in a debate.

Now, I began believing in this "supreme being" because I looked at the universe and the universe indicated that He has to be there, just like the Higgs Boson and Dark Matter. As I looked at the laws of causation and found a beginning to the universe, I deemed that an uncaused cause had to be there.

Everywhere I look in the universe, there are indicators of Him, and they tell me a lot about Him-- just as thousands of great thinkers before me have looked and seen.

So, you'll have to do better than inventing logical rules for me to follow, and tossing out logical fallacies. I am in good company of believing in what is indicated but unproven.

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#221
#221
Orange_Crush said:
I am answering the invention that, logically, you are supposed to disbelieve something until it is proven.

And that's what it is-- an invention.

The Higgs Boson was a mathematical addition that had no evidence to support it. It was just added because if they didn't, matter would not have mass. So they believed in the Higgs Boson before it was proven. They took it on faith because there were reasons indicating that it should be there.

Dark Matter was proposed and believed in before there was one shred of proof that it existed. They believed in it because, without it, there wasn't enough matter in the universe to account for the gravity we observe.

It was an unproven, believed because of inference.

The idea trying to be pawned off on me is that, logically, I have to disbelieve something before it's proven. Poppycock. It was a logical rule invented for convenience in a debate.

Now, I began believing in this "supreme being" because I looked at the universe and the universe indicated that He has to be there, just like the Higgs Boson and Dark Matter. As I looked at the laws of causation and found a beginning to the universe, I deemed that an uncaused cause had to be there.

Everywhere I look in the universe, there are indicators of Him, and they tell me a lot about Him-- just as thousands of great thinkers before me have looked and seen.

So, you'll have to do better than inventing logical rules for me to follow, and tossing out logical fallacies. I am in good company of believing in what is indicated but unproven.

:hi:
Click to expand...

You just tossed out evidence of their existence, then said that there was no evidence of their existence.

And what logical fallacy have I committed? You've accused 2-3 people of using bad logic, but have yet to provide examples of such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#222
#222
Orange_Crush said:
Personally, I really don't lose much sleep about what you believe, nor any more of this actually. But when you make or infer definitive statements, I'll jump in.

So, you've gone from making definitive statements and inferring definitively that the Christian God is a farce, to stating that it's impossible to disprove Him. You seriously seem to be a bit confused.
Click to expand...

Feel free to point out where I definitively said God doesn't exist. Any inference you claim to that fact is on you. All I've said is the position of the believers is inadequate to convincing me.

I've asked this before and gotten mixed responses, but what evidence would it take for you to cease believing in God, and Christianity in particular? I suspect an honest answer to that question would say a lot to why you believe what you do. I'm not trying to start an argument with that question and you don't even have to respond. Just food for thought.
 
#223
#223
I find it intriguing that the atheists in the bunch have made the most definitive statements. Mercy would you care to revisit your earlier statement that faith is misplaced... oh... what was it? In accord to the circumstances of reality?

Really?

Would you care to go ahead and expound to exactly what parts of the faith have been disproved by reality? That was a pretty definitive statement.
 
#224
#224
rjd970 said:
I'm just pointing out nobody knows, including the believers. We do know, for a fact, that the basic building blocks of life are not alive and abundant in the universe. Even basic amino acids and proteins are not alive, yet are an important part of life as we know it. Just because science can't explain every step between A and Z doesn't mean faith can, or that reasonable physically explainable regression to fill in the gaps are wrong.

Questions of how, and specific mechanisms involved are largely debated, but it did indeed happen because here we are, and it can be reasonably explained without the guiding hand of a creator.
Click to expand...

And there's the rub.

The creationist has equall claim to the "we know God did it because we are here" arguement. You can't disprove God so God creating live is an equall hypothesis.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top