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.
Right, it can’t be proven - and that’s the perspective of an agnostic. The existence of God can neither be proven or dis-proven. Neither is the default position.
So you are agnostic about my gold plated Porsche 911?
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.
You are comparing a normal thing (with prior knowledge about the function of the tower, and how it is filled) with the supernatural. The rest of the world understands that much.
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.
Complex, intelligent beings simply do not exist for no reason. Valid enough?
1. No one's arguing that because you don't have evidence for Christianity being false, that therefore it's true.
Irrelevant to anything I have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Zero evidence is zero evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
I already mentioned cognitive bias and contradictory experiences. That is the opposite of ignoring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Science and probability are quick dismissals? Mystic hit this problem as well, once the word games and empty rhetoric were exposed for what they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
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.
Can you stop resurrecting this straw Harry, and let it rest in pieces?
err ... can you stop with personal feelings and M.O.'s deciding how we should be describing the universe.
Remember harry, even though the wheel is 1000s of years old doesn't mean we have to reject it.
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.
