DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You just finished blaming your phone. You contradict yourself.My phone didn’t make me do anything.
Now I'm sure you'll explain how your phone doesn't exist - it just IS.
You just finished blaming your phone. You contradict yourself.My phone didn’t make me do anything.
You just finished blaming your phone. You contradict yourself.
Now I'm sure you'll explain how your phone doesn't exist - it just IS.
I know religion doesn't work on evidence, it works on faith and those gullible enough to believe things that cannot be demonstrated.It doesn’t work like that.
I see, you presuppose that my ability to ask such questions depends on there being a god. Poppycock.That’s not what you said.
I have no faith that god doesn't exist either.You don’t know what faith is, especially seeing as how you have lots of it.
Again you presume to know what's in my mind. Presuppositionalism is dumb because it assumes the thing it's trying to prove. Circular logic.It’s kind of pathetic how you are controlled by labels and genres.
Put it this way: atheist is not inconsistent with current science. Neither are certain brands of theism, of course. Creationist beliefs like yours, however, are inconsistent with science, so if they are part of your theism then your theism is inconsistent with science.Atheism is not supported by current science.
God = knowledge? Is this that magical knowledge you keep going on about? Science isn't about that.Science = knowledge = God.
Atheists aren't forced to believe anything. That's more often a feature of religious dogma.Atheists are forced to believe that the desire and ability “to know”, is a result of billions of years of evolution, starting from nothing.
Given that you have stated that you believe in Santa Claus - that's funny.I’m not surprised coming from someone who actually believes Fido magically turned into Free Willy.
And unicorns. Don't forget unicorns.Given that you have stated that you believe in Santa Claus - that's funny.
Evidence presupposes truth. Truth presupposes God
Does this then mean we cannot make sense of truth without presupposing God? Or better yet, does God imply truth such that we cannot even assert truth without ever denying God? Is God then logically consistent with truth?
If so, then your claim is flawed, not only inconsistent, but actually contradicts itself. This is shown in the first claim where you say, "Evidence presupposes truth" yet nothing of what you have ever claimed here has the support of evidence, the claim fails from the get go as you can no more show a truth than you can presupposing one; ie. God.
If you can't presuppose a truth without evidence, then I can easily claim Leprechauns race unicorns in the Kentucky Derby and it will stand as an absolute truth, based on your logic.
Given that you have stated that you believe in Santa Claus - that's funny.
Put it this way: atheist is not inconsistent with current science. Neither are certain brands of theism, of course. Creationist beliefs like yours, however, are inconsistent with science, so if they are part of your theism then your theism is inconsistent with science.
God = knowledge?Is this that magical knowledge you keep going on about?Science isn't about that.
Atheists aren't forced to believe anything. That's more often a feature of religious dogma.
Nobody doubts that your God exists either - as a character like Santa Claus.I don't believe IN Santa Claus. I believe that Santa Claus (as we know and recognise his character) exists.
I didn't say that. I said Creationism is inconsistent with science.How is God, being the origin of all, the ultimate destination of knowledge, inconsistent with science?
You're right. It's not about attaining magical knowledge, like "just knowing" that God is real, magically. You were right to cross out that reference to magical knowledge when you started talking about science. Well done.What is Science about, if not to attain knowledge?
Hmm. Quoting religious dogma in order to support your point about religious dogma being atheistic in nature. Interesting approach.I think religious dogma, is atheistic in nature, because despite their pomp and ceremony, they cannot recognise God.
A good example of what I'm saying comes from the book of Matthew...
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign;
I know religion doesn't work on evidence, it works on faith and those gullible enough to believe things that cannot be demonstrated.
I see, you presuppose that my ability to ask such questions depends on there being a god. Poppycock.
I have no faith that god doesn't exist either.
Again you presume to know what's in my mind.
Presuppositionalism is dumb because it assumes the thing it's trying to prove. Circular logic.
The problem with the world is that smart people are full of doubts and dumb people are full of confidence
didn't say that. I said Creationism is inconsistent with science.
Hmm. Quoting religious dogma in order to support your point about religious dogma being atheistic in nature. Interesting approach
Nobody doubts that your God exists either - as a character like Santa Claus.
It simply means the destination of attaining knowledge, ultimately leads back to God.
''I'' am not my physical body is a truth.
I cannot be the thing, that I own, is evidence that ''I'' am not my body.
Pro-tip for Jan:That would be atheist thinking.
Because you made him up.How is God, being the origin of all, the ultimate destination of knowledge, inconsistent with science?
Sorry, which question? Whether a God would be inconsistent with science? It might be, or it might not be. It depends what the God entails.You said creationist beliefs like mine.
So can you answer the question please?
What do I think of injunctions such as "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign"?What do you think to it?