Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some people are willing to believe based on what someone else tells them, that isn't sufficient for me. Whether it's the atomic weight of gold, or the existence of angels, some people have a lower standard of "proof", and will believe something they don't really know for sure, based on their own testing.
If you own a car you put your belief in the auto manufacturer that your vehicle is safe. Unless you grow and raise your own food you put your faith in others that its safe. You do put your faith in was other do or say even if it is unsaid.
For some reason whenever I read your posts I think of Walter Matthau.
For whatever it may be worth, I suggest ignoring TKramer for the purposes of this thread. These kinds of arguments are philosophical "black holes" that can suck the life out of any topic, and never shine any light on anything. Anyone really wanting to debate his brand of skepticism would be better off starting a new thread devoted specifically to the epistemological issues he raises.
I've quoted my own post from many pages back because no theists responded to it, but I think it goes to the heart of the OP. Why should we believe that the world was created by an intelligent divinity with some plan or purpose already in mind? All evidence suggests that intelligence emerges from non-intelligent systems. We never see intelligence systems that "just exist" or simply pop out of nowhere. Take human development, for example. We are not intelligent at the point of conception. Intelligence develops as we physically develop. The default position seems to be that intelligence is not something that the world starts with; it is something that the world achieves. The same can be said for meaning and purpose, which go hand-in-hand with developing intelligence. Based on evidence, atheism ought to be the default position. Theism requires us to go beyond the evidence and believe that prior to all physical manifestation of intelligent beings, there was an intelligence that did not develop out of anything, but was always already "just there." Certainly this is possible, but why should we believe it?
The best question is not "Why are some people atheists?" - atheism is just the default rational position based on what we actually see happen in our world. The better question is: "Why do some people see a need to imagine that, in addition to the sorts of intelligence we see arising every day via physical development, there is some mysterious prior intelligence that somehow makes physical intelligence develop?" Why do we need to posit this extra entity?
The absence of a God would not make our lives completely meaningless or without purpose. Instead, we would be forced to find meaning, and our own purpose, in the experiences of our actual embodied lives. This would not be a tragedy; it would be an important from of emotional growth. Religion is like an addiction - hard to let go of, but worth the effort.
If the special ability for a dog is his scent, where is the character or realness of scent in the elements which compose a full dog.
If the special ability of a flower is its attraction of bee's in its aroma & colour....where is this constitution in the construction of the flower.
If a fish's special ability to survive and flourish in water with his or her gill system....where is the technology in his composition which manifests this ability.
If a humans special ability is his or her consciousness, where is the hard problem ?
Also.....how is asking , " At what point is a moving car stationairy..?
any different then asking.....
When or what defines the present..?
So you can not quote me suggesting you simply believe in scientific data because someone else SAYS it is so then. Didnt think you could.
Keep YOUR words out of MY mouth in future. I have more than enough of my own to go on with.
False. Peer review is the EXACT opposite of that. Get your facts right.
Sorry Nozz, it is not in the best interest of religion to get their facts straight, it is actually contra-indicated. Religion does not deal in facts it deals in mythology.
Around in circles TK goes, where are the admins; nobody knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catman
The unknown is possible
No, the unknown maybe possible.
If the unknown is possible back when everyone thought the earth was flat; it then must be possible to fall off the edge of the earth... wait....
I think you must have taken someone's word that that was once a theory.
Do you know the difference between something that is DEFINITE, and something that is merely POSSIBLE? There is a difference between the two. If you can show where something is definite, then it falls in the realm of the "known"...once you've proven or disproven the claim. Then, "possibility" is no longer in the picture. It either is, or it isn't.
But until something becomes definite, it remains possible. How much more explanation do you want? I've given the same explanation over and over again--please tell me that you're not too thick to understand or comprehend it. Others understand.
I think you must have taken someone's word that that was once a theory.
Do you know the difference between something that is DEFINITE, and something that is merely POSSIBLE? There is a difference between the two. If you can show where something is definite, then it falls in the realm of the "known"...once you've proven or disproven the claim. Then, "possibility" is no longer in the picture. It either is, or it isn't.
But until something becomes definite, it remains possible. How much more explanation do you want? I've given the same explanation over and over again--please tell me that you're not too thick to understand or comprehend it. Others understand.
Your argument sums up to this: It's this way because I say it's this way.
The unknown doesn't automatically fall under possible, because it just may be impossible.
How do you go from UNKNOWN to - DEFINITE. How is it possible, that you can take what I type, and flip it around so you can use the opposite meaning of what I said?
The alternative to the standard I have set, is just the one I described. Either you have PERSONAL experience and proof, or you take someone at their word--which are YOU going to accept? I already know what I do.
Again avoiding admitting that I never said what you claimed I said. You simply can not let one moment of honesty happen and admit the lie can you? Summary again for all who do not know already:
1) You asked how to prove something is there if you can not see it.
2) I listed a lot of ways people prove things are there without seeing it.
3) You then outright lied and said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar
When you suggested that I simply believe in scientific data because someone else SAYS it is so.
Which I NEVER said, you CANT quote me as saying it and you REFUSE to admit you lied.
impossible means it cant be ---possible means that it could be,and unless their is absolute proof that is immpossible,then theirs always the chance for possibility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wait....
