Existence is an objective trait. As you have agreed.
Yes, it occurs independently of our minds. We still have to work out what existence is, and how we perceive it. How you, I, and anyone else perceives it, is subjective.
Jan.
Existence is an objective trait. As you have agreed.
Correct, something that exists just for you should be considered a delusion.
It is amusing, IMO, in a sad sort of way, that most of the so-called scientists here who are arguing that there is no evidence for God (atheism, +/-) are more than willing to accept that 'everything' came from 'nothing'. Where is the observable (not hypothetical or theoretical) evidence for "everything came from nothing"?
And the thread ended (it is now ended right?) with no resolution correct?
How many requests made for evidence were answered by you don't understand or words to that effect?
It is amusing, IMO, in a sad sort of way, that most of the so-called scientists here who are arguing that there is no evidence for God (atheism, +/-) are more than willing to accept that 'everything' came from 'nothing'. Where is the observable (not hypothetical or theoretical) evidence for "everything came from nothing"?
I can't read, hence, God kills me?We will all be killed, one way or another.
That's not the issue. How we live the life we are given, is.
You read the quote, figure it out if you care to.
Riddle me this...You accept that for God to exist, there must be external evidence. That in and of itself, is a denial.
Couple of flaws here.It is amusing, IMO, in a sad sort of way, that most of the so-called scientists here who are arguing that there is no evidence for God (atheism, +/-) are more than willing to accept that 'everything' came from 'nothing'. Where is the observable (not hypothetical or theoretical) evidence for "everything came from nothing"?
The same logic can be applied to any invention of the imagination.You accept that for God to exist, there must be external evidence. That in and of itself, is a denial.
Sir, please sir, me sir!But let's suppose someone in this thread were to think there's truth to the SfN model.
Quite correct: it's a valid natural explanation that relies only on what we already know.I seriously doubt you will find them asserting that stance. It is a plausible model
This isn't the position of the agnostic atheist, though.It's not that God isn't, for you. But you accept that God isn't. You accept that for God to exist, there must be external evidence. That in and of itself, is a denial.
Ah, still using "IMO" to absolve you from ever having to support what you state, I see.It is amusing, IMO, in a sad sort of way, that most of the so-called scientists here who are arguing that there is no evidence for God (atheism, +/-) are more than willing to accept that 'everything' came from 'nothing'. Where is the observable (not hypothetical or theoretical) evidence for "everything came from nothing"?
There is no such thing as internal evidence as it applies to anything but your own thought processes or the nature of your own consciousness. What's happened is that theists, having exhausted all other alternatives, are left with justifications for their belief that rely on untestable claims or special pleading. It wasn't always this way, it was a process of winnowing down. We call it the god of the gaps.That you ask for external evidence for God's existence (as if He exists like potatoes and pencil sharpners ), and stick to it, as though that is the God that theists accept, shows you currently have no idea of God. It shows that you are without God.
Questions: Dave, IYO, where DID everything come from? IMO, Everything is NOT "invented". And Dave, what exactly, IYO, was the physical (as in physics) condition of Big Bang pre-history that rational people are in agreement about?Couple of flaws here.
- Who exactly, here, thinks that 'everything came from nothing'? Anyone? Or is this just an invented target? A straw man? I don't see how it bears on any contributor in this discussion.
- But let's suppose someone in this thread were to think there's truth to the SfN model. I seriously doubt you will find them asserting that stance. It is a plausible model, sure, but, as rational people we don't go around saying we "know" it's true - for the very reason you invoke - because we don't have compelling evidence. See how nicely that works? We can't be sure, but we can move forward with it as a working model, knowing it makes untestable assumptions - and will be modified as we learn more about our universe. If Jan were as rational about God as rational people are about Big Bang pre-history, we would all be generally in agreement, and this thread would have never existed.
- Finally, the invocation of God does not solve the problem you pose. If God created the universe, then it simply pushed back the question as to how God was created. 'God always existed' you say? Great. If we suppose that things can have 'always existed', then we can just as easily say the universe 'always existed' (even if in a different form than this one).
Your argument commits what is known as the Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this sometimes leads to regressive middle-men. Explains without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.
LMAO!!Ah, still using "IMO" to absolve you from ever having to support what you state, I see.
FYI - putting the letters in capitals and bolding them doesn't replace the need for you to support your claims.
As to your point, most scientists don't generally believe categorically and 100% that "everything came from nothing".
Those that do also seem to have a rather specific notion of "nothing".
Some certainly accept it as the most rational explanation that they are aware of, based on the evidence that we have.
But they are willing to change their position as and when evidence to the contrary is presented.
Therein lies the difference.
It is amusing, IMO, in a sad sort of way, that most of the so-called scientists here
who are arguing that there is no evidence for God (atheism, +/-) are more than willing to accept that 'everything' came from 'nothing'.
3.) God exists and there is, in fact, zero external evidence - therefore, it makes exactly zero difference whether God exists or not.
As in zero difference to you, zero difference to me and zero difference to the universe at large.
Why is there something rather than nothing?