| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:42 |
 Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
Which "god", or more accurately whose? |
I don't know, my God? I find some parts of the Judeo-Christian God appeal, but ultimately unlikely. I wouldn't claim to know any of the specifics of the situation.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:44 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
So, simply because science can't yet give us all the answers, we should just choose to believe in myths and fairy tales to fill in the gaps? 
I'm not saying god doesn't exist-- what I am saying, however, is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of one. Meanwhile, science can be proven time and again in the areas it HAS uncovered so far. Why should I choose to believe is something completely non-scientific just because science hasn't answered it all yet? You don't stick a completely misshapen jigsaw piece into an incomplete puzzle and expect it to fit, do you? Science is just an ever-growing puzzle which is always going to be missing a piece or two along the way. It doesn't mean we should just stick anything at all within the gaps as placeholders until the real piece is found.
Whether or not the thought of a god comforts you is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. I would much rather know the truth and be sad than be diluted and happy. But hey, that's just me.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:44 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:49 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
|
Indeed. Ultimately, both stances come down to this: something had to have always been there.
Believers say that God created everything. Okay, but who created God? And if God too 'always was', then why not just skip a step and stick with the scientific perspective? We KNOW we came from somewhere, but we don't know if some being created us, or not. Even though both viewpoints come down to a seemingly impossible origin, the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility. What's more, we have no scientific evidence that yet backs up such a concept. It's amazing to me how so many people (including myself, once upon a time) are able to disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea.
Edited by JLocke - July 06 2010 at 12:51
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:52 |
|
You complain that people use the fact that science can't explain everything as a reason to disbelieve it, but then you act as if the fact that religious people can't explain every aspect of God is evidence against God. You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:53 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
|
I'm assuming the creator is uncreated, as you're assuming time and space are uncreated. Why would you angrily fight against a personal belief of mine that in no way effects the life of anybody, including myself honestly. What you're pushing isn't science. It's outside the realm of science.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:54 |
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue. |
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:55 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
argument in favor of their belief
|
Isn't this the crux of the problem?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:56 |
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
So, simply because science can't yet give us all the answers, we should just choose to believe in myths and fairy tales to fill in the gaps?
I'm not saying god doesn't exist-- what I am saying, however, is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of one. Meanwhile, science can be proven time and again in the areas it HAS uncovered so far. Why should I choose to believe is something completely non-scientific just because science hasn't answered it all yet? You don't stick a completely misshapen jigsaw piece into an incomplete puzzle and expect it to fit, do you? Science is just an ever-growing puzzle which is always going to be missing a piece or two along the way. It doesn't mean we should just stick anything at all within the gaps as placeholders until the real piece is found.
Whether or not the thought of a god comforts you is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. I would much rather know the truth and be sad than be diluted and happy. But hey, that's just me. |
You're not pursuing any truth yourself. Its a period of time which is unobservable to us. I'm not rejecting science at all. If science comes up with a better explanation (or any) I would be happy to adopt it. I don't really need to be lectured on science for the record so you know.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:56 |
JLocke wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue. |
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well. |
Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 12:57 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
Which "god", or more accurately whose? |
I don't know, my God? I find some parts of the Judeo-Christian God appeal, but ultimately unlikely. I wouldn't claim to know any of the specifics of the situation. |
And I think that is the only answer - however the Universe began it will be the doing of "my god", regardless of who or what that "god" is.
|
|
What?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:00 |
thellama73 wrote:
You complain that people use the fact that science can't explain everything as a reason to disbelieve it, but then you act as if the fact that religious people can't explain every aspect of God is evidence against God. You don't see the hypocrisy in that?
|
No. Because what science does explain, we can 100% prove. Religion or belief in a deity cannot be proven at all. In fact, the bible itself has been disproved scientifically and historically over and over again. That's assuming you're a christian, of course. If you simply believe in 'god' as a vague, spiritual concept, you're on even more shaky ground, since nothing at all exists that can prove your own personal view of what god may be.
And I didn't say people used science's inability to explain it all as a reason to 'disbelieve it'. I said that folks choose to fill in the gaps science has yet to explain with nonsense. If anybody here actually 'disbelieves' in Science, that person is obviously ignorant.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:00 |
JLocke wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
|
Indeed. Ultimately, both stances come down to this: something had to have always been there.
Believers say that God created everything. Okay, but who created God? And if God too 'always was', then why not just skip a step and stick with the scientific perspective? We KNOW we came from somewhere, but we don't know if some being created us, or not. Even though both viewpoints come down to a seemingly impossible origin, the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility. What's more, we have no scientific evidence that yet backs up such a concept. It's amazing to me how so many people (including myself, once upon a time) are able to disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea. |
80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...
Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right...
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:02 |
Padraic wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Padraic wrote:
My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue. |
Maybe I missed something, but . . . what is so wrong with Mike wanting this to continue? The Christian thread is still alive and kicking, so I don't really think it's fair for us non-believers to not have a place of our own, as well. |
Couldn't this continue in one of the several threads Mike started on this topic? |
It could. But since the forum is not continuous it really doesn't matter which thread it continues in as long as it doesn't sprawl across the whole forum in multiple simultaneous threads like last time.
|
|
What?
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:05 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
So, simply because science can't yet give us all the answers, we should just choose to believe in myths and fairy tales to fill in the gaps?
I'm not saying god doesn't exist-- what I am saying, however, is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of one. Meanwhile, science can be proven time and again in the areas it HAS uncovered so far. Why should I choose to believe is something completely non-scientific just because science hasn't answered it all yet? You don't stick a completely misshapen jigsaw piece into an incomplete puzzle and expect it to fit, do you? Science is just an ever-growing puzzle which is always going to be missing a piece or two along the way. It doesn't mean we should just stick anything at all within the gaps as placeholders until the real piece is found.
Whether or not the thought of a god comforts you is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. I would much rather know the truth and be sad than be diluted and happy. But hey, that's just me. |
You're not pursuing any truth yourself. Its a period of time which is unobservable to us. I'm not rejecting science at all. If science comes up with a better explanation (or any) I would be happy to adopt it. I don't really need to be lectured on science for the record so you know. |
I have no doubt that you know just as much about science as I (probably more). I was not lecturing you on science itself. I'm simply trying to show you how ridiculous it is to even worry about the stuff science hasn't yet answered. What does it matter if we don't yet know exactly how we all got here? If you're searching for the answer, but can't yet find it, I don't see the point in making something up, or buying into a notion that someone else made up.
But hey, I didn't come into this to fight or argue. Only to debate. You and I have never gotten along very well, so I'm not going to push this anymore. Believe in whatever you want; nothing is stopping you.
Edited by JLocke - July 06 2010 at 13:10
|
|
JLocke
Prog Reviewer
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:06 |
jampa17 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
|
Indeed. Ultimately, both stances come down to this: something had to have always been there.
Believers say that God created everything. Okay, but who created God? And if God too 'always was', then why not just skip a step and stick with the scientific perspective? We KNOW we came from somewhere, but we don't know if some being created us, or not. Even though both viewpoints come down to a seemingly impossible origin, the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility. What's more, we have no scientific evidence that yet backs up such a concept. It's amazing to me how so many people (including myself, once upon a time) are able to disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea. |
80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...
Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right... |
You completely missed the point of my entire post. Good job.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:11 |
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
So, simply because science can't yet give us all the answers, we should just choose to believe in myths and fairy tales to fill in the gaps?
I'm not saying god doesn't exist-- what I am saying, however, is that I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the existence of one. Meanwhile, science can be proven time and again in the areas it HAS uncovered so far. Why should I choose to believe is something completely non-scientific just because science hasn't answered it all yet? You don't stick a completely misshapen jigsaw piece into an incomplete puzzle and expect it to fit, do you? Science is just an ever-growing puzzle which is always going to be missing a piece or two along the way. It doesn't mean we should just stick anything at all within the gaps as placeholders until the real piece is found.
Whether or not the thought of a god comforts you is irrelevant when it comes to the truth. I would much rather know the truth and be sad than be diluted and happy. But hey, that's just me. |
You're not pursuing any truth yourself. Its a period of time which is unobservable to us. I'm not rejecting science at all. If science comes up with a better explanation (or any) I would be happy to adopt it. I don't really need to be lectured on science for the record so you know. |
I have no doubt that you know just as much about science as I. I was not lecturing you on science itself. I'm simply trying to show you how ridiculous it is to even worry about the stuff science hasn't yet answered. What does it matter if we don't yet know exactly how we all got here? If you're searching for the answer, but can't yet find it, I don't see the point in making something up, or buying into a notion that someone else made up.
But hey, I didn't come into this to fight or argue. Only to debate. You and I have never gotten along very well, so I'm not going to push this anymore. Believe in whatever you want; nothing is stopping you. |
That sort of thinking is very contrary to the rational human I believe. Before science enters a realm traditionally philosophers have probed those issues and developed their own pseudo-scientific theories. There's nothing wrong with that. My point isn't that science has not gone there, but that it is outside the realm of science. I could be proven wrong on that fact of course, but that would be shocking.
I'm not trying to start a fight as well, push all you want. If my views aren't challenged they won't be refined.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:12 |
Padraic wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
argument in favor of their belief
|
Isn't this the crux of the problem? |
I know what you mean. But I deliberately used the word "argument" rather than "evidence". If any religion could be proven to be correct, it would not be a religion - there would be no faith required to believe it. All that Atheists usually ask for are good reasons for believing in it. This is also what I'm primarily interested in ... but I've yet to hear any that can't be easily refuted.
|
|
jampa17
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2009
Location: Guatemala
Status: Offline
Points: 6802
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:14 |
JLocke wrote:
jampa17 wrote:
JLocke wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Many of those who followed the discussions in this forum about half a year ago may now ask: "Why is he creating another thread". And the reason is simple: I saw this funny video this morning:
And so the topic for this thread is: Are there any theists out there who think that they have any argument in favor of their belief that hasn't already been refuted over and over?
|
Yes.
Science doesn't purport to and cannot settle the issue of how the space and time began, so I'm free to take any stance on it that I want really. I find the existence of a "god" who created it to be somehow more comforting, so I chose to believe in that. |
And who created the creator? You're free to believe in that, but it doesn't get you anywhere - it's just a more elaborate way of saying "I don't know". Science wins over religion here due to Occam's Razor - assuming a creator is an unnecessary increase in complexity.
|
Indeed. Ultimately, both stances come down to this: something had to have always been there.
Believers say that God created everything. Okay, but who created God? And if God too 'always was', then why not just skip a step and stick with the scientific perspective? We KNOW we came from somewhere, but we don't know if some being created us, or not. Even though both viewpoints come down to a seemingly impossible origin, the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility. What's more, we have no scientific evidence that yet backs up such a concept. It's amazing to me how so many people (including myself, once upon a time) are able to disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea. |
80% of what is or "be" on the "Sky" (you mean, space) we don't know what it is... I understand that is called by scientists "black matter" and we don't have a clue what it is, but is there. Now, is not that God inhabbit there, but if you ask "Who creates God?" I can ask you the same, where was this black matter before? and you cannot explain it. Most of your theories are just that and it's not likely that happened. In fact, in the same process of science there's a lot of inferences, scientist said "this could happened" but they are never sure and a 75% chances of being true doesn't mean it IS true, it's just a chance...
Sorry, I haven't heard anything conclusive from those who think and claim that they can be conclusive. At least Theist, we don't want to conclude anything, we just believe and hope we are right... |
You completely missed the point of my entire post. Good job. |
Oh really? you said that "the God theory is still the least likely of any other conceivable possibility" and I answer that chances for something to happen are just that, chances. the you said that people "disregard all of that completely just so they can keep believing in their 'man in the sky' idea" and I tell you back that there's nothing conclusive about creation, for none of the sides, we don't know, you especially claims that you don't know and here is where my point is: you can just make inferences, not conclussions. At least theists, again, don't claim to know, we just hope...
Oh, I miss the point again...!!! 
|
|
Change the program inside... Stay in silence is a crime.
|
|
BaldJean
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387
|
Posted: July 06 2010 at 13:27 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
BaldJean wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Oh, and the answer is yes, it's settled. You won Mike. Please move along, nothing to see here. |
It's kind of ironic that you act just like the religious speakers in the video.
I don't see this as a matter of me winning or not. My standpoint is reasonable, while the religious standpoint isn't. There are much more good reasons for not believing in a God, than there are reasons for believing - and if I was wrong about this, religious people would present these reasons ... they certainly had a long time to come up with any. If this seems like an arrogant stance to you - maybe you're right, but I won't sacrifice the truth just for the sake of not offending religious people.
|
you just have the wrong concept of God, that's all. the concept you have of him (you mentioned it in other posts, so I know about it) is indeed not reasonable, but it has nothing whatever to do with what God really is
|
I don't have any particular concept of God - but of course I usually argue against the Monotheistic/Anthropomorphic God, so I know what you're referring to. But that doesn't mean that I agree with your concept. If one said that "God" is simply the world we live in (including ourselves), then I would agree that it exists - but I would wonder why it should be called "God".
BTW: How can you be so sure that you know what God really is?
|
because I have experienced him (I dislike the pronoun) quite simple. I had a so-called "mystic experience", something which is of course sneered at by scientists because it is not repeatable in a laboratory environment
|
 A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
