Atheists Don't Need to Provide Reason or Rational?
Me - So you think we evolved from monkeys? To be honest this
video is merely a bunch of assumptions based on a bias towards evolution.
Matt - Centuries
of research, science and confirming studies on any topic which competes with
the concept of god = pure bias. And you know it's true because beyond science,
there is faith! A totally Non-delusional state of mind which allows you to
denounce any and all reason in exchange a simpler explanation.
Me - Have you
read any books that discuss the contrary evidence to evolution? If not, then
how can you say you are educated enough to say it is a fact?
Matt - That's
a solid point, and he fact that I've lived in and observed the same world
through my own eyes offers no support to my agreement with evolution. I suppose
I should read a book, do you have a suggestion?
Me - I would
recommend Dr. Jason Lisle who focuses on astronomy and how it reflects
creation. He also has a vast amount of youtube videos.
If you would like a more humorous approach I also recommend "God doesn't believe in Atheists". Although I suspect you would quickly dismiss this book intellectually but not philosophically
If you would like a more humorous approach I also recommend "God doesn't believe in Atheists". Although I suspect you would quickly dismiss this book intellectually but not philosophically
one more:
Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, by Phillip Johnson
I have one
more question, I apologise but this assumes you hold an atheistic belief.
Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that
position? Your reasons are likely based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of
it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position?
Randy - Save
you some time
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/.../239-jason-lisle.html
..."it is good to keep an open mind, but not so open that one's brain falls out." - Bertrand Russell
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/.../239-jason-lisle.html
..."it is good to keep an open mind, but not so open that one's brain falls out." - Bertrand Russell
Me - Have you
read any of jason lisle studies on astronomy?
Matt - I
haven't read into contrary evidence. As you pointed out my opinion is primarily
based on logic, (both logical explanations in science and illogical arguments
that 'support' the idea of a god or intelligent creation.) and evidence. The
definitive difference between theory, evidence and proof also leads me towards
my opinion. I'm not studied on the subjects or religion, creationism or
atheism. But the TANGIBLE evidence AND proof that evolution is the answer, in
my mind stands it's ground from that start.
Every once and a while I find myself in these discussions... And the driving point behinds anyone who objects is, more often than not, exactly what your getting at, "your not informed so how can you have an opinion?". I personally believe that my own a ability to observe, reason and draw a conclusion is more powerful than information (right or wrong information, ultimately) I could read.... The whole concept of faith or destiny is dependent on those who will/do listen won't be objective enough to reason for themselves -because it offers an easy blanketing answer for complex questions that the listeners brain can't answer. Not to say they're not intelligent but I understand it is human nature to take the path of least resistance (much like any physical action/event/force).
In addition to all that, when the brain doesn't have an answer, it tries so desperately to connect dots that May or may not be there. this behavior can be tested here.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/brain_explorer/jumping.html
Your brain looks at half those letters and in measly told you what it was saying... yet there wasn't in fact enough visible information for you conclude the answer you came up with was right but it's the only answer you see. Now that you check the answer you can see what I'm talking about. Ask your Is it possible this same behavior is what created god or other "easy" answers that we all crave to know? Especially considering people have had thoughts for who knows how long but the technological advancements simply weren't available to suggest anything different.
Every once and a while I find myself in these discussions... And the driving point behinds anyone who objects is, more often than not, exactly what your getting at, "your not informed so how can you have an opinion?". I personally believe that my own a ability to observe, reason and draw a conclusion is more powerful than information (right or wrong information, ultimately) I could read.... The whole concept of faith or destiny is dependent on those who will/do listen won't be objective enough to reason for themselves -because it offers an easy blanketing answer for complex questions that the listeners brain can't answer. Not to say they're not intelligent but I understand it is human nature to take the path of least resistance (much like any physical action/event/force).
In addition to all that, when the brain doesn't have an answer, it tries so desperately to connect dots that May or may not be there. this behavior can be tested here.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/brain_explorer/jumping.html
Your brain looks at half those letters and in measly told you what it was saying... yet there wasn't in fact enough visible information for you conclude the answer you came up with was right but it's the only answer you see. Now that you check the answer you can see what I'm talking about. Ask your Is it possible this same behavior is what created god or other "easy" answers that we all crave to know? Especially considering people have had thoughts for who knows how long but the technological advancements simply weren't available to suggest anything different.
"illusory
pattern perception". A professor named Jennifer Whitson performed some
tests that demonstrate it. I saw it originally on "through the worm hole"
I know I'll be criticized bring up "through the wormhole", but you can look up her publication on it. The video just roughly explains it.
I know I'll be criticized bring up "through the wormhole", but you can look up her publication on it. The video just roughly explains it.
Me - "both
logical explanations in science and illogical arguments that 'support' the idea
of a god or intelligent creation" I'm sorry but your very statement is
illogical. Let me see if I can break down just what you are trying to imply by
your statement.
1st - Scientific arguments are logical, therefore evolution is true. This begs the question how do you know all scientific explanations are logical? Couldn't some be illogical?
2nd - God arguments are illogical, therefore God does not exist. This also begs the question how do you know all arguments for God are illogical? I personally know of many logical arguments for the existence of God. You are discrediting some titans of philosophy and theology (which are sciences) in making a statement such as this.
3rd - Your entire statement has a goal and that goal is to basically say "Science is logical, God is not" - Please prove your statement.
I am still awaiting an answer to this question posted above: "Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are likely based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position?"
Here is one example of an illogical assumption of evolutionary scientists “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967)."
1st - Scientific arguments are logical, therefore evolution is true. This begs the question how do you know all scientific explanations are logical? Couldn't some be illogical?
2nd - God arguments are illogical, therefore God does not exist. This also begs the question how do you know all arguments for God are illogical? I personally know of many logical arguments for the existence of God. You are discrediting some titans of philosophy and theology (which are sciences) in making a statement such as this.
3rd - Your entire statement has a goal and that goal is to basically say "Science is logical, God is not" - Please prove your statement.
I am still awaiting an answer to this question posted above: "Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are likely based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position?"
Here is one example of an illogical assumption of evolutionary scientists “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967)."
Matt - The
"meaning in white noise" video on that link.
#1, I'll use
to word faith to get you attention. I put faith in the scientific process much
in the same way you do with god. the difference is, and I'll point out again,
there are TANGIBLE reasons for why this faith is appropriate. community of
objective thinkers, the scientific process, and RESULTS. Is your point that me
not being the guy the discovers and confirms/denies anything related to the
topic renders my opinion wrong? Let me use your statement here "you are
discrediting some titans of.." Scientific research "..in making such
a statement as this."
#2 religious people I have spoken with (there are many of those types in the world) indicate to me that god is all seeing/all knowing, we're put on earth as a test. To see if we pass the test to worship and honor him despite distractions of the devil. yet he's all knowing.. How does he not know the end result from the beginning? To which you'll answer "god gave us free will" to which I reply "then how is he all knowing?". God is a concept, in my opinion.
While I didn't exactly indicate I'm "atheist" or that I have a philosophical view on it or evolution, I have the ability to reason and feel that in conjunction with "titans" of science it's what most logical.... See #1 above if your still confused. Your argument is the same as 75% as the rest "you haven't studied how can you know" how can I verify you studied? I was present in your classroom or when you read books... If you have a degree show it to me but how can I be sure you paid attention and took it all in? We can do this all day. Stop deflecting.
Those points on evolution are a moot... My skin isn't the same color as Michael Jordan, does that mean he's not human?
#2 religious people I have spoken with (there are many of those types in the world) indicate to me that god is all seeing/all knowing, we're put on earth as a test. To see if we pass the test to worship and honor him despite distractions of the devil. yet he's all knowing.. How does he not know the end result from the beginning? To which you'll answer "god gave us free will" to which I reply "then how is he all knowing?". God is a concept, in my opinion.
While I didn't exactly indicate I'm "atheist" or that I have a philosophical view on it or evolution, I have the ability to reason and feel that in conjunction with "titans" of science it's what most logical.... See #1 above if your still confused. Your argument is the same as 75% as the rest "you haven't studied how can you know" how can I verify you studied? I was present in your classroom or when you read books... If you have a degree show it to me but how can I be sure you paid attention and took it all in? We can do this all day. Stop deflecting.
Those points on evolution are a moot... My skin isn't the same color as Michael Jordan, does that mean he's not human?
What are your philosophical
opinions?
Me - "there
are TANGIBLE reasons for why this faith is appropriate." By tangible do
you mean material? Something you can touch, taste, see, smell or hear?
And yes I believe the world/universe was created (or came into existence) by an intelligent mind, specifically the God of the Bible.
And yes I believe the world/universe was created (or came into existence) by an intelligent mind, specifically the God of the Bible.
Matt - Replace
the word tangible with physical if that helps.
Great! We have your stance. Your on the defense now, prove it right.
Great! We have your stance. Your on the defense now, prove it right.
Me - Matt,
first please answer this question are the laws of Logic material?
Matt - Stop
putting me on the defense! Your need to control the conversation only supports
the theory that those who lack control are more likely to connect non-existent
dots (I.e believe in god) as suggested in Jennifer Whitson publication.
Me - Here is
the basic claim I have: Without God nothing could exist.
There are four possibilities for the reality we experience around us:
1st - Reality is an illusion
2nd - Reality is/was self created
3rd - reality is self existent (eternal)
4th - reality was created by something that is self existent
Would you care to discard any of these or suggest a different possibility before I continue? If you choose to discard please explain why, if you choose to add another please explain why
There are four possibilities for the reality we experience around us:
1st - Reality is an illusion
2nd - Reality is/was self created
3rd - reality is self existent (eternal)
4th - reality was created by something that is self existent
Would you care to discard any of these or suggest a different possibility before I continue? If you choose to discard please explain why, if you choose to add another please explain why
Matt - Go
on....
Me - Ok,
Reality as an illusion - This option was ruled out centuries ago by the
philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore
I am.” Basically I can know, for certainty, that at least I exist, therefore
reality can not be completely an illusion.
reality being self-created is analytically false, it is false by definition
reality being self-created is analytically false, it is false by definition
Basically it
is not possible, without ignoring logic and reason, for something to exist
before it existed to create itself
This leaves us
with two options, both assume something eternal. This is that either matter and
the universe itself are eternal, or something outside and beyond the universe
is eternal
Here is the
illogical issue I belief an atheist has. In denying God you embrace an eternal
universe. But in doing so you are ignoring that all modern scientific evidence
points away from an eternal universe. The universe had a beginning and will
have an end.
The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
[At this point
I waited for a response from Matt till the next day]
I would love
to carry on this conversation to the God of the Bible, however I find it highly
unlikely that you would agree, no matter how logical an argument, for Him if
you deny the mind behind the very reality we experience.
[I again
waited for several hours……no response. Not sure who else may be following the
discussion I opted to post again]
One last
point. I hear many atheists counter this argument with a statement along the
lines which says that the natural laws themselves are eternal or that the
conditions necessary for existence were always there (eternal). Here is the
major glaring issue with this argument. If the laws of nature, or preconditions
for existence, are impersonal than it follows that they would not
"decide" to suddenly act. That is, if the impersonal (no intelligence
involved) preconditions for existence are infinitely old then the universe itself
would also be infinitely old (eternal). It could not be eternal since that
would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the
present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it
wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. Something
cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into
existence. Here comes the part we simply don't understand: God exists outside
of time and space. This actually makes logical sense that an eternal mind would
have decided to create something rather than an eternal something without a
mind which would merely do what it was supposed to do because the conditions
were always there to do it.
Aaron - I
appreciate everybody adding in numerous amounts of details to this post, but
really, no amount of posts or actual conversation will convince those of us who
have given serious thought to this subject on God whether or not to believe in
a God.
Me - Aaron
I agree. I can give you a logical argument which a rational person can at least
acknowledge is valid. Unfortunately you are free to also ignore a completely
logical argument if you so choose.
Aaron - Would
it be fortunate if I was forced to believe this argument? LOL
Me - I am
saying I can't force you to do anything. I can no more prove to you that God is
real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I
don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as
invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not
God exists.
Aaron - I
am convinced most if not all people do love their family, religious or not. Our
presuppositions are in part to our parents not 100 % brainwashing us as
children.
Me - Your
actions and objections and reasoning imply you know God exists but you deny Him
anyway...Think about this: If atheism is true the universe has laws. These laws
cannot be violated. Life is a product of these laws and can only exists in
harmony with those laws and is governed by them. Therefore, human thought,
feelings, etc., are programmed responses to stimuli and the atheist cannot
legitimately claim to have meaning in life or free will since his physical
brain is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions that must always have
a necessary outcome based on the physical laws of the universe. Essentially you
are merely experiencing chemical reactions to stimuli and your brain is
reacting differently than mine. I believe you have meaning and genuine
consciousness but that has a rational basis in my worldview, not in yours.
Aaron - Oh,
speaking in absolutes like that assures you will get a sharp response arguing
w/ such a bold point. I don't believe god exists and no point I have made in
this post has even suggested that, regardless if you believe so or not. Any
chemical reactions are physical, not spiritual. I also find it hilarious you
even dare you cite science as any source in your responses.
Me - You
would rather me argue based on arbitrary claims that you could easily dismiss?
Aaron - More
importantly, how about respond to some very important points listed on this
video. Let's start out with this, why do we have an appendix if we are not
eating rough flesh?
I wasn't
trying to change the subject, we just posted the same at once. What arbitrary
claims are you referring to?
Me - None,
you said "Oh, speaking in absolutes like that assures you will get a sharp
response arguing w/ such a bold point." I am asking if your issue is if I
am not being arbitrary in my argument (which of course would defeat my
argument)
http://creation.com/your-appendix-its-there-for-a-reason
http://www.icr.org/article/appendix-thorn-evolutions-side/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../human-veriform-appendix
In reference to the appendix
http://www.icr.org/article/appendix-thorn-evolutions-side/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../human-veriform-appendix
In reference to the appendix
If you would
like to continue randomly debating individual evidence this will become
pointless very quickly. Please tell me how, or on what basis, are you
dismissing the logical argument for God's existence posted above?
[At this point
I gave several hours for responses but did not receive any, so I opted to
continue the logical argument above for the existence of God]
I will
conclude the argument for the God of the Bible:
If an eternal Creator exists (and I have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
Now I leave you with this: Joshua 24:15 "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
I will add to this you could also choose to serve yourself. By God's grace, love and mercy you do have the freedom to choose who to serve.
If an eternal Creator exists (and I have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
Now I leave you with this: Joshua 24:15 "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
I will add to this you could also choose to serve yourself. By God's grace, love and mercy you do have the freedom to choose who to serve.
Randy - Man,
I sure am glad religion is dying. This shit is psychological warfare. Kids
never stood a chance against it. It's like a virus.
[Welcome back Randy!]
Me - Arbitrary
opinion with no basis for your statement.
Randy - Yeah,
it is, I'm happy you've put so much effort into something. At least you have
something to hold onto. I'm sad because I feel it is wasted. There's much
better things you can do for humanity (in my opinion) with all that energy. No
matter how many holes we punch in creationism, you've got a bucket to collect
the water that is pouring out. Your buckets are filling fast and they aren't
big enough. Creationism is running out of buckets and It makes me excited. It's
like science has found a vaccine for religion. It will eventually fizzle out
and be the stuff of myth along side all the other dead religions.
Me - Randy,
can I suggest a quick study of logic and reasoning. It's difficult to even
begin to answer your statement because of the massive use of logical fallacies.
If you feel so strongly that I am wrong, and you feel so strongly it is bad,
the first step you should take is to participate in the argument using reason,
not emotions and arbitrary opinions. We Can't have a productive discussion
without it.
Randy - It
wasn't a question, it was a statement based on opinion. I have stopped asking
questions because of the plethora of unanswered questions in our previous
discussions, you simply ran out of buckets and resorted to sermon. As I
mentioned the evidence against pretty much everything you have stated is
absolutely staggering. You live in a delusion, constructed from your childhood
that you had no chance at defending yourself from. I'm sad because if you were
to apply your knowledge to something useful, you could have made a tangible
difference in this world and not wasted it. I find it HILARIOUS you tell ME to
do a quick study of logic and reasoning, when I've been teaching it to you for
the last couple of months on your FB wall. My intentions are not to convert you
or convince you of anything, my intentions were for everyone to see how crazy
and delusional your beliefs are in your domain with your audience watching.
I've got nothing for you to argue against, because, yes it is all opinion. The
only thing you can do shake your head.
Me - Your
correct randy, all I can do is shake my head. You self admit that all your
providing is opinion whereas I provided a clear rational and logical argument
to which you, and others, fail to respond.
Randy - The
best thing I got for you is that I've dismissed everything from AiG,
Creation.com, and all of their "scientists". What else you got?
Aaron - I
think it is safe to say that each person who commented here within the past
week is pretty damn sure of what they believe and nothing will change their
mind.
Me - Randy I'm
waiting for someone to argue for or against the logical argument posted above.
You will likely dismiss any evidence for Creation, that is your bias.
I would also like to hear you give a counter logical argument for the non existence of God (I have yet to hear one, they all seem based on arbitrary opinion which is by definition not logical proof). I have logically and rationally defended my belief, as requested above, now the burden of proof is on you. Or you could disagree with me but arbitrary opinions don't count.
I would also like to hear you give a counter logical argument for the non existence of God (I have yet to hear one, they all seem based on arbitrary opinion which is by definition not logical proof). I have logically and rationally defended my belief, as requested above, now the burden of proof is on you. Or you could disagree with me but arbitrary opinions don't count.
Randy - There
is no logical argument. I also don't need to make an argument for the
non-existence of something. I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of
proof is on the person who makes the claim and you have not provided any proof
for the existence of a god.
Me - "The
burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim and you have not provided
any proof for the existence of a god." I have provided "proof",
you have not commented or argued any of it at all. This is the last time I will
ask: Please explain why the logical argument above is not proof.
Me - How
bout this Randy, Let me put the ball back in
your court. If a person asked you what kind of things you'd accept, within
reason, as evidence for God, what would you say? What are you looking for? I
gave a valid logical argument and you have thus far ignore it, so what, in your
opinion, would be acceptable?
Randy - I've
re-read the post and all i see is "smoke and mirrors".
I've evaluated
your claim that a god exists, and I reject it. Now convince me there is a
god...go.
Me - Randy on
what basis do you reject it? If not based on reason or rationality than how can
we carry on a conversation/debate/argument?
Randy - My
reason and rational is that I have not seen sufficient evidence to support your
claim. Just because there's a supposed hole in evolution does not prove a god
exists, furthermore, exercising a thought experiment does not fully support
your claim. Logic and reason is the avenue we take to get to the evidence of a
claim.
Me - Randy
your rational is subjective. I did not propose a " hole " in the
theory of evolution. I have shown that God is necessary for anything to
exist.
Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
Do you believe that physical evidence is the only way to prove anything ( empiricism)? Please explain your answer.
Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore, it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
Do you believe that physical evidence is the only way to prove anything ( empiricism)? Please explain your answer.
Randy -
Secondly, you are essentially saying that there is no way to physically test for a god to exist, so we must resort to the effects of a god. We can do this similarly for things like wind, we can't see it, but we can see the effects that it creates. These things can be considered in the case for your claim. I hope that's the answer you were looking for.
Secondly, you are essentially saying that there is no way to physically test for a god to exist, so we must resort to the effects of a god. We can do this similarly for things like wind, we can't see it, but we can see the effects that it creates. These things can be considered in the case for your claim. I hope that's the answer you were looking for.
Me - "science has shown that a god is not necessary for anything to exist." fallacy of reification: scientists would be more proper except not all scientists agree on your statement.
I want to know do you believe empirical evidence is the only way to prove anything?
Randy - Science has shown (me) that....there, is that better? You've
moved on to the offensive again, putting me on the defense. We will get nowhere
if you continue to do that. Let's continue, present your evidence, empirical or
not.
Me - I have and your denial of the evidence is nothing but arbitrary.
So I suppose this ends the conversation. I'm not trying to persuade you, I merely gave a rational reason for my faith...you have thus far not done so and it was asserted in this conversation that an atheist doesn't need to provide any reason or evidence.
Randy - Correct, the one making the claim is the one required to present evidence leading to that claim. An atheists claim of not believing something does not require evidence, otherwise I would need to provide proof that vampires, werewolves, and unicorns do not exist. The list would be endless. But I agree, we can find another topic, another time.
Me - Must be convenient to never have to provide reason or rationality for your stance.... so answer me this: since your worldview requires no evidence or rational isn't it completely based on faith?
[No Response]
