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.
"My" arguments are certainly not the end-all-and-be-all of Pantheism in general...a concept that certainly is a God View specifically relative to "what is there", being stopped.
As far as a concept relative to God Belief that is based in "something is not there"...Atheism is the Poster Child for that.
You "lack belief" and "have no evidence" about it...how much more "something is not there" can you get?!
And the only logical determination one can come to from a argument based on a "no evidence" premise...is either "we have no evidence", or "we don't know".
Many Atheists employ the Logical Fallacy "Argument from Ignorance" and try to use "lack of evidence" as evidence, to draw your unreasonable conclusion off of.
Your straw man, special pleading and ignorance of Bayesian probability is noted. Again.
Your straw man, special pleading and ignorance of Bayesian probability is noted. Again.
The strawman is your claim of a strawman.
As per the issue of "stopping when something is not there and/or discussed only what is there": Pantheists believe/perceive The Universe as God to them...The Universe is certainly "what is there". Yet...discussion about it is stopped/limited.
Atheists believe God "is not there"...yet they do not stop from discussing it, and the discussion of what "is not there" permeates this board.
No, you misrepresented atheism to make it look as if it had no evidence for it.
It doesn't...and y'all admit it.
For years now, I have referred to it as the LOBBUNE Doctrine (Lack of Belief Based Upon No Evidence) based upon the arguments y'all have presented.
How many thousands of times have I seen a Atheist write, "There is no evidence for God. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH!", "No evidence on offer...put up or shut up", "We are still waiting for you to provide evidence, thus far you've presented none at all"...on this board?
If you have some objective evidence to back Atheism (No God), let's see it. Not "probability"...let's see objective evidence for it.
About a third of my comments are mostly Cut & Paste of old comments. Some I've posted dozens of times.
If Atheists can "demand evidence", compare God to Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc, say the Religious "believe in Fairy Tales, and the OT God is sadistic & horrible a jillion times...and the mainstream Religious can write about their Theological tenets over and over...then I find it appropriate to repeat my views.
Well, if it is simply to avoid having to type the same thing over and over, and/or rather than cut/paste, I simply refer people to my Ten Truths thread. Mostly, however, I look for something new to comment about rather than just repeat myself. We've all got our different interests and styles here. You were the one who started spouting off about how you only post an average of under two comments per day as compared to more by me. Just thought I'd compliment you on your recent efforts to bump up your average, even if just repeating yourself.
The fact that you need to keep repeating this lie is a big clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
For years now, I have referred to it as the LOBBUNE Doctrine (Lack of Belief Based Upon No Evidence) based upon the arguments y'all have presented.
We call that lack of evidence for gods Bayesian. But well done for admitting you have no evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
How many thousands of times have I seen a Atheist write, "There is no evidence for God. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH!", "No evidence on offer...put up or shut up", "We are still waiting for you to provide evidence, thus far you've presented none at all"...on this board?
If you have some objective evidence to back Atheism (No God), let's see it. Not "probability"...let's see objective evidence for it.
The probability argument (zb, 8 billion people with brains; and our old, large universe is objective) is so overwhelming, we are waiting for you to do better (and have been doing so for over 2000 years).
This seems ironic coming from an atheist since atheists claim it is not possible to know what does NOT exist, and yet they adamantly demand that we accept as a default that God does not exist because we can't know.
Not sure about all that, but if you can explain how anyone can know what does NOT exist, I'm interested...
Or maybe I misunderstand you (again). Maybe it's your wording. I think we generally know what exists. What we may think or claim or speculate about with regard to what we don't know exists is simply just that. Speculation. I'm just not one to claim speculation is truth until we can know the truth either way. Until then, the default is simply to be honest about what we know and what we don't know. That's all I try to do anyway, regardless how you want to adamantly describe my thoughts any differently.
"My" arguments are certainly not the end-all-and-be-all of Pantheism in general...a concept that certainly is a God View specifically relative to "what is there", being stopped.
As far as a concept relative to God Belief that is based in "something is not there"...Atheism is the Poster Child for that.
You "lack belief" and "have no evidence" about it...how much more "something is not there" can you get?!
And the only logical determination one can come to from a argument based on a "no evidence" premise...is either "we have no evidence", or "we don't know".
Many Atheists employ the Logical Fallacy "Argument from Ignorance" and try to use "lack of evidence" as evidence, to draw your unreasonable conclusion off of.
Lack of evidence is often cause to throw a case out of court...
I suppose if you were a judge or juror in such a case, you'd like to spend your time considering the lack of evidence even after the janitor has turned the lights off...
There is what we can know, and [b]there is what we can't know[/B]. May we have the wisdom to know the difference. May we also not make stuff up in the absence of what we can know...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This seems ironic coming from an atheist since atheists claim it is not possible to know what does NOT exist, and yet they adamantly demand that we accept as a default that God does not exist because we can't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Not sure about all that, but if you can explain how anyone can know what does NOT exist, I'm interested...
I agree with you, that was my point. It is something we can't know which belies your atheist claim for a default for what we can't know.
Quote:
Or maybe I misunderstand you (again). Maybe it's your wording. I think we generally know what exists. What we may think or claim or speculate about with regard to what we don't know exists is simply just that. Speculation. I'm just not one to claim speculation is truth until we can know the truth either way. Until then, the default is simply to be honest about what we know and what we don't know. That's all I try to do anyway, regardless how you want to adamantly describe my thoughts any differently.
I am not trying to adamantly describe your thoughts differently. You seem to be saying that you do NOT agree with those atheists here who claim the default is God does NOT exist until proven. Since that default would be mere speculation since we do not know, correct?
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.
