What do atheists think that "to know God" means?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
wynn:
Many theistic traditions don't really address the question at all. I'm not an expert, but I expect there wouldn't be many theistic traditions which do address the question that don't have their god(s) involved.
Many modern Christians, for example, do accept the concept of abiogenesis. Such Christians do not insist on a literal reading of Genesis, but take it as a creation myth.
They mean they don't believe that god(s) exist as real beings in the real world.
What do you think they'd mean?
Many theistic traditions don't really address the question at all. I'm not an expert, but I expect there wouldn't be many theistic traditions which do address the question that don't have their god(s) involved.
Many modern Christians, for example, do accept the concept of abiogenesis. Such Christians do not insist on a literal reading of Genesis, but take it as a creation myth.
They mean they don't believe that god(s) exist as real beings in the real world.
What do you think they'd mean?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
LightGigantic, two hours ago in post 133, I proposed we see how long we can all go without anyone committing an ad hominem. You might have missed it or ignored it.
I made an example of an indirect ad hominem: "this stance is laughable/ignorant".
Your post here:
definitely qualifies as an indirect ad hominem.
Nobody requires you play along, but we seem to be coming to a consensus that personal attacks are not helping this debate.
Would you like to try to debate without them?
I made an example of an indirect ad hominem: "this stance is laughable/ignorant".
Your post here:
definitely qualifies as an indirect ad hominem.
Nobody requires you play along, but we seem to be coming to a consensus that personal attacks are not helping this debate.
Would you like to try to debate without them?
lightgigantic
And saying god did it simply regresses to who/what made god. The point of panspermia is not that life necessarily came from space, but that the necessary complex chemicals were delivered to Earth from space(as the meteorites containing amino acids actually do to this day).
Whether you are unaware of the evidence or simply reject any evidence that is contrary to your predetermined conclusion doesn't change the fact that evidence exists.
What's to explain? Why would I not refer to the role that probabilities times massive numbers times long periods of time equals near certainty that at least one of these chemical interactions could create a self replicating molecule. It only has to happen once.
The point of what I said is it is your assumptions that are flawed. The Universe isn't going to be destroyed, it originated in the visible expansion we named the Big Bang(the concept originated from a Franciscan Preist, LeMatre)and chance is just a part of the Universe. The Universe is evolving, no maintenance is taking place, the Universe is not maintaining a certain state. I don't know why you keep asking, of course I don't reject what we know about the Universe.
Yep. That's all we have. There is no certainty, all you can do is use the evidence to determine the probability that something is true. More evidence, higher probability. Less evidence, lower probability. It's just common sense.
Same question, same flawed assumptions.
It was in response to this
My answer was
Entirely on topic, if you wish to discuss a particular afterlife concept, then yes, you must specify and define what you mean. My education in theistic concepts informs me that there are many, often conflicting, things theists believe and don't believe about an afterlife.
But that is not true for all branches of science, especially astronomy, where we daily observe in great detail events in this Universe that took place before the sun even existed. And everywhere we look in space follows the same laws we see in our own neighborhood, our models work everywhere within range of our telescopes and the more evidence we gather the more accurately we understand what we see. It is a vast Universe that we have only begun to learn about, but it is not a blurry picture. Here's a baby picture of the Universe...
...at the age of 380,000 years old. They're so cute when they're that age.:bravo:
And that all agree between them, within the margin of error, giving us clocks good for over 5 billion years. And radioactivity is all about probabilities and chaos.
Yes, it's called theoretical physics to make the distinction that it is mathematics and theory based, not evidence based. We don't have a great deal of confidence in such speculative things, they are not considered more than informed speculations by many physicists(including me).
So Newton's work was guesswork? Science doesn't see it that way, Newton was largely correct, his work described the motions of the planets pretty accurately(except for that stubborn wobble Mercury had, that is), but Einstein was even more accurate and he could even explain Mercury's anomoly exactly. Some day even Einstein may be replaced by someone elses's explanations(though his has passed every test and predicted many things which have been observed. I wouldn't hold my breath). That's what science does, tests and examines and calculates and improves based on new evidence. That's why we never claim to know anything with certainty. Far from guessing, it is the only path to objective knowledge.
These are not facts, they are misrepresentations of what is known about the Universe.
Grumpy
And saying god did it simply regresses to who/what made god. The point of panspermia is not that life necessarily came from space, but that the necessary complex chemicals were delivered to Earth from space(as the meteorites containing amino acids actually do to this day).
Whether you are unaware of the evidence or simply reject any evidence that is contrary to your predetermined conclusion doesn't change the fact that evidence exists.
What's to explain? Why would I not refer to the role that probabilities times massive numbers times long periods of time equals near certainty that at least one of these chemical interactions could create a self replicating molecule. It only has to happen once.
The point of what I said is it is your assumptions that are flawed. The Universe isn't going to be destroyed, it originated in the visible expansion we named the Big Bang(the concept originated from a Franciscan Preist, LeMatre)and chance is just a part of the Universe. The Universe is evolving, no maintenance is taking place, the Universe is not maintaining a certain state. I don't know why you keep asking, of course I don't reject what we know about the Universe.
Yep. That's all we have. There is no certainty, all you can do is use the evidence to determine the probability that something is true. More evidence, higher probability. Less evidence, lower probability. It's just common sense.
Same question, same flawed assumptions.
It was in response to this
My answer was
Entirely on topic, if you wish to discuss a particular afterlife concept, then yes, you must specify and define what you mean. My education in theistic concepts informs me that there are many, often conflicting, things theists believe and don't believe about an afterlife.
But that is not true for all branches of science, especially astronomy, where we daily observe in great detail events in this Universe that took place before the sun even existed. And everywhere we look in space follows the same laws we see in our own neighborhood, our models work everywhere within range of our telescopes and the more evidence we gather the more accurately we understand what we see. It is a vast Universe that we have only begun to learn about, but it is not a blurry picture. Here's a baby picture of the Universe...
...at the age of 380,000 years old. They're so cute when they're that age.:bravo:
And that all agree between them, within the margin of error, giving us clocks good for over 5 billion years. And radioactivity is all about probabilities and chaos.
Yes, it's called theoretical physics to make the distinction that it is mathematics and theory based, not evidence based. We don't have a great deal of confidence in such speculative things, they are not considered more than informed speculations by many physicists(including me).
So Newton's work was guesswork? Science doesn't see it that way, Newton was largely correct, his work described the motions of the planets pretty accurately(except for that stubborn wobble Mercury had, that is), but Einstein was even more accurate and he could even explain Mercury's anomoly exactly. Some day even Einstein may be replaced by someone elses's explanations(though his has passed every test and predicted many things which have been observed. I wouldn't hold my breath). That's what science does, tests and examines and calculates and improves based on new evidence. That's why we never claim to know anything with certainty. Far from guessing, it is the only path to objective knowledge.
These are not facts, they are misrepresentations of what is known about the Universe.
Grumpy
Last edited:
I suggest you take it up with grumpy
The italics was a direct quote of his in post 334?
And? What does the existence of such people mean for this discussion?
"Everyone who claims to be a theist, regardless of what they profess to believe or do, should be considered a theist by everyone else." -?
I would think they have an elaborate and complete philosophy ready that explains everything.
A philosophy that settles all the questions on what "real" and "existence" and "God" means.
As opposed to using loaded terms and pretending they are clear.
@wynn --
Way to miss the point there. Not like you have a great track record for getting the point in the first place, so how about I repeat my original point in a more straightforward manner.
You have repeatedly given "advice" today which you yourself should be taking as you are frequently in violation of it.
Way to miss the point there. Not like you have a great track record for getting the point in the first place, so how about I repeat my original point in a more straightforward manner.
You have repeatedly given "advice" today which you yourself should be taking as you are frequently in violation of it.
Ok, maybe Arioch is playing hardball, but thats just so kindergarten!