Or just repeating the same argument for the nth time!!!!
O - C - D.
Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
O - C - D.
actually youre wrong as always,trying to redefine atheism into something it aint.
its not a doctrine at all,
I think its possible for some kind of god to exist,such as Deistic one,or even spiritual something...
but I dont believe in it and dont worship it,..thats why Im atheist.
there was a thread on evidence for god done many times already I suggest you look it up!
How about an answer to the OP?
Any overwhelmingly non-random cosmological-scale signature.
Something in the distribution of galaxies.
Something in the structure of the CMB.
Like that, you know?
HaaaaHaaaaHaaaaahahahahaaaaa!
Yes lacking a beleif in a Xenu doen't make sense! AAAhhhhh HAAaaaa Haaaa!
This reminds me so much of those long debates were SAM couldn't "understand" /you make no sense/ that the possibility of her religious beleif being wrong could exist. The whole notion just doesn't make sense... I dunno Michael just dunnit maken any cents.
The definitions are there to promote logical debate. Something Webster was not and not SAM is not at all interested in doing.
What was SAM's state of mind in regards to Xenu before she heard of Scientology? Did she believe in or lack a belief in Xenu? Answer: She lacked a belief in Xenu. She was atheist.
What was SAM's state of mind in regards to Allah before she was taught to beleif in It? Did she believe in or lack a belief in Allah? Answer: She lacked a belief in Allah. She was atheist.
Makes perfectly crystal clear sense.
Thats the first interesting answer in this thread.
What would be a cosmological scale signature you would recognise as an indication of God ? Do you believe that God would be "natural"?
Whats CMB?
1) CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background
2) If god were "natural" (whatever that might imply...) then how would you even tell if it was god and not a "natural" process.
3) We understand the univers to be ruled largely by randomness. Local deviations from randomness follow well known physical laws. Something highly non-random or structured in a way that clearly indicated design would be interesting to say the least.
CMB:
Galaxy distribution:
The ultimate "why" of physical law? I have no idea. This is metaphysics and fun to speculate about, but not grounds for adopting belief in a god entity. If you insist on a god, then this always begs the question "why god?". You're just substituting one unknown with another, apparently more comfortable one.
How about an answer to the OP?
You never responded to [post=1821939]my answer[/post].
Just not interesting enough, I guess.
You never responded to [post=1821939]my answer[/post].
Just not interesting enough, I guess.
Hehe, I missed it.
You seem to believe in a sort of anthropomorphic God with biological manifestations and dare I say it? feelings and good works.
Which does not make sense to me. :shrug:
Sorry.
You missed (or are ignoring) the "Cosmological scale signature" specification.
For example, if the Cosmic microwave background included an unambiguous and detailed picture of a human, or some geometric figures (a circle!), or some prime numbers, that would be evidence of God.
Here's yet another example:
In Carl Sagan's Contact (the book, not the movie), the atheist protagonist finds convincing evidence of God in the digits of Pi... deep inside Pi's base 11 representation, she found a sequence that was an unambiguous pictorial representation of a circle.
You asked for examples of evidence for "God" without further specification. I took a common understanding of what people men by "God", and suggested some evidence that would indicate the existence of such.
Now you're changing the target... but that's OK.
If you tell me some characteristics of God that make sense to you, then I can suggest some examples of robust evidentiary support for your idea of God.
If that's what you want.
Well I answered your response regarding your response.
It doesn't actually have to make sense to me, I just wanted to know what kind of God you expected evidence of.
Why not say, physical laws that govern with exactitude? Something logical and measurable rather than magical and inexplicable?
That sounds illogical to me.
Pardon the late reply lightgigantic.
Yes, but my sense of self changes as time goes on as well. I may have the "same" personal identity, it still has changed. But even so, this doesn't change the fact that so far nothing demonstrates that this "life" you refer to isn't completely tethered and inseparable from the body. When the body fails, life as we know it fails. Nothing in your example of growth indicates that life, my sense of self, would go on post-mortem.
Just because we can't fully identify upon what our personal identity rests does not mean that we can assume it rests on God. And there is no reason why you could not indicate the body. Take a flowing river. At different points in time, it will have different water molecules flowing through it. The water in it at one point in time is not the same as the water at a different point. But the river is still the river. And so, though my body may change, it is still my body. It is not suddenly a new body, thus "constant". Similarly, my personal identity, my sense of self, is changing with every second, but it is still the same personal identity. Like the river, and like the body, it changes but remains constant. I don't need the sort of concept of a constant notion of self that you're implying.
This is only if you believe your sense of self is dependent on god and thus circular. We need to drop this for now and first establish that this god is even necessary.
What is the problem? Why is it a problem for me to get away from the bodily concept of life when I have no other credible concepts to go to? While the body concept has its faults, so does every other concept. Would it not make more sense to claim ignorance than to claim a fact you can't verify as truth?
Again, simply because we cannot confirm personal identity is tied to the body does not mean that we can assume it is dependent on something else, like god.
Yes, but my sense of self changes as time goes on as well. I may have the "same" personal identity, it still has changed. But even so, this doesn't change the fact that so far nothing demonstrates that this "life" you refer to isn't completely tethered and inseparable from the body. When the body fails, life as we know it fails. Nothing in your example of growth indicates that life, my sense of self, would go on post-mortem.
Just because we can't fully identify upon what our personal identity rests does not mean that we can assume it rests on God. And there is no reason why you could not indicate the body. Take a flowing river. At different points in time, it will have different water molecules flowing through it. The water in it at one point in time is not the same as the water at a different point. But the river is still the river. And so, though my body may change, it is still my body. It is not suddenly a new body, thus "constant". Similarly, my personal identity, my sense of self, is changing with every second, but it is still the same personal identity. Like the river, and like the body, it changes but remains constant. I don't need the sort of concept of a constant notion of self that you're implying.
This is only if you believe your sense of self is dependent on god and thus circular. We need to drop this for now and first establish that this god is even necessary.
What is the problem? Why is it a problem for me to get away from the bodily concept of life when I have no other credible concepts to go to? While the body concept has its faults, so does every other concept. Would it not make more sense to claim ignorance than to claim a fact you can't verify as truth?
Again, simply because we cannot confirm personal identity is tied to the body does not mean that we can assume it is dependent on something else, like god.