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.
I don't have any "evidence" that there is no water in the giant water tower hovering above the small town. But that is not proof that the water does not exist. No matter how many people say that it's proof, I won't believe it.
Yet that's what the entire argument coming from the atheist sect sounds like to the rest of the world.
I said nothing about ignorance of Reality. What I said was that Atheism is a negative position and you can't prove a negative. You're asking the Atheists to prove a negative.
That is not accurate. You may not have explicitly said anything about it but your acceptance of a "No God until proven" default IMPLICITLY inserts "No God" into our ignorance of Reality without ANY valid reason to do so.
I don't have any "evidence" that there is no water in the giant water tower hovering above the small town. But that is not proof that the water does not exist. No matter how many people say that it's proof, I won't believe it.
Yet that's what the entire argument coming from the atheist sect sounds like to the rest of the world.
good news ozzy. people that believe we are part of a larger more complex will always outnumber the deny everythingers. Its because, like you eluded to, people are smart enough to describe the system around them for the last 100,000 (+- a few 10's).
we will always describe the system that way because denying it at every turn is just flat nonsense.
That is not accurate. You may not have explicitly said anything about it but your acceptance of a "No God until proven" default IMPLICITLY inserts "No God" into our ignorance of Reality without ANY valid reason to do so.
Nope. That's not what I said. You're moving the goalposts. You asked atheists for evidence to support their non-belief. I simply reminded you that you can't prove a negative.
I'm not asking for anything. I made a post up there in response to Mystic saying that atheists don't have any evidence to support their position. Atheism, being a negative position, is not provable.
you said "offer evidence for god and atheist (presumably you) would believe."
I asked you what traits you are asking about?
surely you understand its about traits of the universe that will give us a clue to what is actually on?
Nope. That's not what I said. You're moving the goalposts. You asked atheists for evidence to support their non-belief. I simply reminded you that you can't prove a negative.
actually he is not moving the goalposts. for the atheist that don't make any claims, you would be correct. But not all sects of atheist are the same.
he said, for the atheist that claim there is no god, what is their evidence against some the traits we are assigning to god?
I can actively support my claim that jesus did not rise. I am not proving a negative, I am supporting a claim.
Which doesn't even address belief in the Christian god, or any other god which is said to be immaterial, the creator of the universe, etc., much less refute it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
So zombies walking on water exist? Of course it addresses it, as we do not see angels, miracles, etc. and no evidence for gods is evidence for atheism.
1. No one's arguing that because you don't have evidence for Christianity being false, that therefore it's true.
2. No, it doesn't address the god question to point to other entities which we could expect different degrees of evidence for. Because as I said, these are different sorts of entities altogether.
3. "We" is an interesting word to use. I assume you mean we nonbelievers, because if you mean "we" as in people in the 21st century that's clearly not the case. Moreover, most Christians attribute their belief to god's "making himself known" to them in various ways, a fact I keep bringing up because it keeps being essentially ignored. Yet it's a considerable difference between belief in a god and belief in a friggin unicorn or some such.
Most of your responses after that are just quick dismissals without an effort to show how anything I've said was wrong. So I'll skip ahead to Craig and Barrow and Tipler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And how did he misrepresent them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
He alleged they were confirming Hawking's was talking about creation from absolutely nothing when they were pointing out that is the flaw in the argument if Hawking's if he did not take quantum mechanics into consideration.
If you are talking about the quote I think you're talking about, that wasn't a misrepresentation, just a quote of a conditional statement. Craig doesn't argue that the Big Bang was the beginning, only that if it were then it would suggest very strongly a creation ex nihilo (and yes, using that quote). He has, as I'm sure you know, interacted with other models and later cosmology to argue for a beginning regardless.
Exactly! You either don't believe or you do (which includes the the belief that there might be. Again. No middle ground.
If you are referring to the definition of agnostic again, it’s not the same as an atheist. Two different words, and there is most definitely a distinction.
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.
