utter nonsense!
Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Yes, I agree: "Agnotism" is a nonsense word. Well, wait. We can give it meaning. "Agnotism" can mean a gross ignorance of a subject! Makes sense, right? After all, you were so ignorant of the concept of agnosticism that you not only got the definition wrong, but you didn't even know what it was really called.
more nonsense ..... if you want to have this thread locked you will have to do it on your own...bye bye
You are making a common equivocation fallacy. Faith commonly also means trust, but religious faith means belief without evidence. I do trust in certain things due to past performance. Science is a good example of this. I place tentative trust in the methods of science because it achieves results. I never said the universe was completely random, but the opposite of random is not God.
Do you ever read the answers?
You've come a long way from a "fine tuning" argument.
Certainly not. As I said, the contradiction is between omnipotence and restraint. If one was omnipotent, there would be no reason for restraint. If I was an omnipotent God, I wouldn't take six days to make one universe. I'd make forty billion universes in the first nanosecond and another forty billion in every following nanosecond.
Faith, period, is belief without evidence.
You have no idea of what would constitute evidence of God, from your perspective, yet you believe there
is none. The faith is dependant upon the value which you place on God. So you have alot of faith.
You believe, because you cannot see God (as a being) with your eyes, this constitutes evidence of God's non existence. That is faith.
The fact that nobody claims a FSM or Pink Unicorn, means there is no pressure to believe and/or have faith in, so your possible, pending, diversion, is irrelevant.
Most people trust in the methods of science, just as most people trust pilots, or, bus drivers, to do their job properly. This has nothing to do with faith. Faith is relevant in scenarios where we do not know, as in absolutely no idea, but place alot of hope in something.
jan
SideshowBob,
Firstly, evidence isn't about people agreeing upon it. It is about the individual coming to terms with it. That most people may agree
on a point, does not make the evidence correct, necessarily.
Regarding other evidences. Can you provide evidence that the universe is 14 byo?
jan.
Firstly, evidence isn't about people agreeing upon it. It is about the individual coming to terms with it. That most people may agree
on a point, does not make the evidence correct, necessarily.
Regarding other evidences. Can you provide evidence that the universe is 14 byo?
jan.
So I don't know what would constitute evidence of God? That is so. But this isn't a weakness in my position, it's a weakness in yours. You should be able to say what evidence of God would look like. In science, that's called a falsifiability. I think you've been here long enough to get that. Maybe not. If a claim isn't falsifiable, it can be dismissed as irrelevant, useless and worthless.
It's not that I disbelieve in God because I can't see it. I believe in many things I cannot see directly. I'm agnostic on the existence of God. I don't know if there is or there isn't one. But I don't believe it because there is no evidence. Recognizing a lack of evidence doesn't take faith. It's just logic.
I agree with your final statement that faith is hope in something for which there is no evidence. Another word for that is delusion. I don't believe in false hope, however happy it might make me.
I have to disagree. An individual coming to terms with something is a separate issue from what that something actually is. How one comes to terms with cancer has no bearing on what cancer actually is.
The best way we have to decide what something actually is is to compare our own perceptions with other people's perceptions. When we see something unusual, our first impulse is to ask somebody, "Did you see that?" Confirmation is the basis of confidence.
Agreement is what makes evidence evidence. It has nothng to do with "correctness".
As far as I understand it, the age of the universe is extrapolated from the observed rate of expansion. You can examine the data yourself and repeat the calculations to confirm what others have done.
I would actually disagree with your sentiment here. False hope in times of peril can be very soothing. For example, you can believe you'll beat cancer even when the prognosis is that you won't. That kind of false hope--or at least hope for the highly improbable--can be the difference between fighting and giving up. And, okay, maybe you lose the fight either way, but that's not necessarily the most important thing.
My argument would be that we can have all the "useful" faith without appealing to any sort of deity. We can do without it, and we really should.
You are a foul mouthed troll. Watch your language!
spidergoat,
You don't need me to tell you, there are methods contained in scriptures, and personified by people who have become successful in such methods, which you can partake in, to see if there is any merit to the claims.
You actually wanting me to show you, is no different to asking me to taste some food for you, then tell you what it tastes like.
And who is Karl Popper to me, why I should accept his concept of what constituttes science, when there is knowledge that is known to some that cannot be falsified.
I totally agree with you on this.
Then you're not ''agnostic'' simply because you claim there is no evidence. You do not know whether or not there is evidence, but you believe there to be none. This is nothing but a choice on your part.
What method you use to conclude there is no evidence of God?
jan.
You don't need me to tell you, there are methods contained in scriptures, and personified by people who have become successful in such methods, which you can partake in, to see if there is any merit to the claims.
You actually wanting me to show you, is no different to asking me to taste some food for you, then tell you what it tastes like.
And who is Karl Popper to me, why I should accept his concept of what constituttes science, when there is knowledge that is known to some that cannot be falsified.
I totally agree with you on this.
Then you're not ''agnostic'' simply because you claim there is no evidence. You do not know whether or not there is evidence, but you believe there to be none. This is nothing but a choice on your part.
What method you use to conclude there is no evidence of God?
jan.
I disagree with your suggestion that there are reliable methods to meet God. Plenty of people including me sincerely sought God and other supernatural things at various times and were met with nothing. Even in the ideal situation of a sincere person of faith, we cannot know that their personal experience is real. Not even God can provide absolute certainty of his existence because to have absolute certainty, you need omniscience, and nothing is omniscient but (theoretically) God. I've had hallucinatory experiences of deities, so I know it's possible. The fact of human delusion and hallucination provides all the doubt we need to dismiss the reliability of personal experience. The methods of science are provably the only way to know anything with reasonable certainty. I do know there is no reliable evidence of God currently available in popular media, because if so, it would be revolutionary.
Last edited:
It all starts with making sure that you have physics constants that will ultimately lead to the ingredients of life and the support structures of life. How much can you vary these constants before atoms won't form? If the speed of light is too large, then coulomb forces are too weak for atoms to form. You also have to design antimatter to decay, quickly, into stable matter. As a Creator, you have to think about how biochemistry cooking of amino acids. Where will those amino acids come from? You can use carbonaceous meteorites to "salt" various planetary bodies with amino acids. You need a solvent, like water. You need organic mechanisms for creating phopholipids. It all starts with very careful planning.
What does this mean? How much is a lot? How much is a little?