04 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerYes time is a property of the universe so it has 'always existed'.
It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Another false claim and strawman.
Originally posted by dj2becker
You mean to say that the universe has always existed?
'popped into existence, out of absolutely nothing' is not part of big bang cosmology and give the image of a timeline external to the universe which is actually meaningless.
The interesting thing about all this is that you cannot use big bang cosmology as an arguement for the existence of God as you do not believe that big bang cosmology is correct!
04 Oct 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere is my english not clear? The existence of God is not an explanation but rather an attempt at hiding the problem.
doesnt answer anything actually but rather translates to "we have invented a name for what we dont understand and thus claim to know what we dont understand".
Originally posted by dj2becker
There are some things which can only be explained by the existence of God.
Your use of 'only' is also questionable as the Great Spagghetti Monster provides an equivalent explanation.
04 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerApparently, as an end to it, too...as all you've done is present Comfortian "presumptuousness" in the form of inane "questions". Just remember, in the "lack of absolute knowledge" that you try to wield as some form of weapon against the unbeliever...lives the possibility that God, as described in the Christian Bible, does not exist. Are you willing to concede that?
As a starter for this discussion I will include an article by Paul Copan:
05 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerAtheism is a faith, along with all the others. The only sensible position is that of the agnostic. Open minded and rational. I'll believe it when i see it. I'll disbelieve it when it is shown to me to be false. I have never understood how any intelligent,questioning, free thinking mind could think any differently to this. Go agnosticism go.....!Whoooo!!
As a starter for this discussion I will include an article by Paul Copan:
http://www.rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3
"The Presumptuousness of Atheism"
Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist."1 Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another ...[text shortened]... nd Rationality (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 27.
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by twiceaknightUmm, you need to read up on agnosticism, you've more or less just defined weak atheism...
Atheism is a faith, along with all the others. The only sensible position is that of the agnostic. Open minded and rational. I'll believe it when i see it. I'll disbelieve it when it is shown to me to be false. I have never understood how any intelligent,questioning, free thinking mind could think any differently to this. Go agnosticism go.....!Whoooo!!
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by twiceaknightYour implication is that Atheism is equivalent to Theism. Are you implying that a Christian for example is equally a non-muslim, non-budhist, non-Hinduist etc and his faith in the Christian God is merely one of an infinate number equivalent 'faiths' that he has? Does the agnostic who chooses to leave all the doors open therefore have no faith? Surely you believe that you exist and that you have hands etc or is that just faith too and you are agnostic about it?
Atheism is a faith, along with all the others.
I'll believe it when i see it. I'll disbelieve it when it is shown to me to be false.
Many athiests claim that the existance of the various gods described by most theists have been shown to be false.
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by StarrmanOk. Never mind the big words. How about this... it is silly to believe in something unless you are 100% SURE it is true. Agreed?
Umm, you need to read up on agnosticism, you've more or less just defined weak atheism...
People cannot be 100% SURE there is a god, and cannot be 100% SURE there is no god. Agreed?
Therefore, I am 100% SURE i don't know if there is a god or not.
Anyone who THINKS THEY ARE SURE about the existance or non existance of god are mistaken. They are not sure, this is why they feel the need to ponder and argue over it.
How could anyone possibly KNOW? Why can't people just admit they don't really know for SURE? I don't know. 😕
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by twiceaknight
Ok. Never mind the big words. How about this... it is silly to believe in something unless you are 100% SURE it is true. Agreed?
No, you make a million decisions a day based on beliefs far less sure than 100% I dispute the possibility of 100% surety of anything.
People cannot be 100% SURE there is a god, and cannot be 100% SURE there is no god. Agreed?
Agreed
Therefore, I am 100% SURE i don't know if there is a god or not.
Okay
Anyone who THINKS THEY ARE SURE about the existance or non existance of god are mistaken. They are not sure, this is why they feel the need to ponder and argue over it.
Perhaps.
How could anyone possibly KNOW? Why can't people just admit they don't really know for SURE? I don't know. 😕
The point is that placing any level of belief in something which there is no certainty in is redundant. Such it is that a weak atheist witholds that assent in the absence of evidence. He does not say I believe there is no god, he says I see no reason to believe and thus deny the existence of god based on a lack of available evidence. This is not the same position as making a claim on god's existence or lack thereof.
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by twiceaknightNo I dont agree. It does depend of course on what you mean by "100% sure", and "believe". I believe that I am going home after work, but I am not 100% sure.
Ok. Never mind the big words. How about this... it is silly to believe in something unless you are 100% SURE it is true. Agreed?
People cannot be 100% SURE there is a god, and cannot be 100% SURE there is no god. Agreed?
I am 100% sure that the God defined in the various major religions of the world does not exist.
Anyone who THINKS THEY ARE SURE about the existance or non existance of god are mistaken.
Being mistaken does not therefore make you not sure. False logic. Being sure does not automatically make you correct.
They are not sure, this is why they feel the need to ponder and argue over it.
I am sure and argue over it mostly because Christians have caused a lot of problems in my life because of thier mistaken beliefs and I would like to correct that as far as I can. I would also like to see more education in the area of the theory of evolution as people who deny its validity are attempting to stop others from studying science in schools.
How could anyone possibly KNOW? Why can't people just admit they don't really know for SURE? I don't know. 😕
I "KNOW" the Christian God does not exist to the same degree that I KNOW I exist. If, as you claim, I cannot be sure about God then I also cannot be 'SURE' that I exist. My knowledge and sureity are based on experience, logic and thought.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
3 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanNo, you make a million decisions a day based on beliefs far less sure than 100% I dispute the possibility of 100% surety of anything.
Originally posted by twiceaknight
Ok. Never mind the big words. How about this... it is silly to believe in something unless you are 100% SURE it is true. Agreed?
No, you make a million decisions a day based on beliefs far less sure than 100% I dispute the possibility of 100% surety of anything.
People cannot be 100% SURE there is dence. This is not the same position as making a claim on god's existence or lack thereof.
Do you mean to say that you are not 100% sure of your own existence?
And if I asked you whether you are a male or a female, you will say, "I'm not 100% sure"...
No wonder it's impossible to have a logical philosophical discussion with you...
I guess you are not even 100% sure whether you are an atheist. 😀
06 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanI still think that there is a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. Atheism still places a burden on the theist that agnosticism doesn't.
Originally posted by twiceaknight
[b]Ok. Never mind the big words. How about this... it is silly to believe in something unless you are 100% SURE it is true. Agreed?
No, you make a million decisions a day based on beliefs far less sure than 100% I dispute the possibility of 100% surety of anything.
[b/]People cannot be 100% SURE there is dence. This is not the same position as making a claim on god's existence or lack thereof.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo whenever the Atheist's position is challenged, he can sit down like the mental couch potato that he is and say the burden of proof is on the theist. How convenient.
I still think that there is a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. Atheism still places a burden on the theist that agnosticism doesn't.
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAbsolutely, there is a difference. If we say simply that weak atheists consider the evidence and agnostics say we are unable to consider the evidence we come to a position where, in my opinion, agnosticism is the refuge of the apathetic.
I still think that there is a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. Atheism still places a burden on the theist that agnosticism doesn't.
Weak atheism does place a burden on the theist, but I feel a justified one.
06 Oct 06
Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that you are not 100% sure of your own existence?
Yes, but I opt for a common sense belief that I do, and am not a brain in a vat or some such.
And if I asked you whether you are a male or a female, you will say, "I'm not 100% sure"...
Again, not 100% sure, but in a common sense view based on the likelyhood, yes, I would offer my belief to the likelyhood of being male.
No wonder it's impossible to have a logical philosophical discussion with you...
You wouldn't know a logical philosophical discussion if it throttled you.
I guess you are not even 100% sure whether you are an atheist. 😀
Given the above proviso, yes.
06 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerhey...dj2becker, do you remember earlier how you stated that the burden was on me to prove the FSM for actually making the claim he exists? 😉🙄
So whenever the Atheist's position is challenged, he can sit down like the mental couch potato that he is and say the burden of proof is on the theist. How convenient.
why don't you actually think about what you are saying for once!!!...and then actually resolve our earlier discussion!