To add to this, you must remember that any counter-claim (such as God doesn't exist) also had the burden of proof. In most debates, each speaker generally has their own burden.
Existence of God disproved!
- Thread starter jsmoke
- Start date
To add to this, you must remember that any counter-claim (such as God doesn't exist) also had the burden of proof. In most debates, each speaker generally has their own burden.
Both parties to this argument need to recognise that they have a set of beliefs that they consider to be true, but without any proof, that underpin the theoretical structures they then overlay over them.
Both parties when challenged about this will get equally defensive and use the same well it's just stupid to think otherwise line of thinking.
Both parties when challenged about this will get equally defensive and use the same well it's just stupid to think otherwise line of thinking.
Evidence that science defines rather than describes reality then?
Did I say that ? Your interpretation of science is yours, right or wrong.
Last edited:
Precisely. That's why it's philosophy and not science.
You mean only 1 though maybe 2 but surely not 3... because you havent said anything about who or what Gnostics are.....
Also i guess we will have to agree to disagree because you're use of the word Gnosticism is utterly minimalistic and derived of the actual origins and soul of its meaning....it boggles the mind... and i see where you got it from now that you have posted that cartoon image....
That cartoon you posted.....mind boggling how simplistic it takes such terms and presents it. Was that found on the back of a cereal box?
Shame. The definitions are adopted by many people. Your dismissive attitude is yours to promulgate but many people including myself would shake our heads in dismay at what you have just posted.
Edit:
Maybe, if you are genuinely interested, you can watch this:
Last edited:
Would you accept evidence offered if it was outside of the scientific method? Your first post to me in this thread was about the assigning of probabilities to hypotheses, and a subsequent one cited accepting evidence of acts of love being evidence for love. Would you accept acts of faith as evidence of god? (I asked before but you did not answer).
I can accept things based on trust, which is outside of the scientific method. However trust is evidenced based. We have trust in people we know based on our interactions with them over a period of time. People who generally tell the truth are trust worthy, people who lie a lot are not. So we assign a level of trust accordingly.
I do not accept acts of faith as evidence for god because faith (in the religious sense) is belief without evidence. Hence the saying 'A LEAP of faith'. In other words a blind following of a doctrine which requires only belief and no empirical evidence.
Your personal beliefs or feelings are not evidence, nor are your anecdotes. Or perhaps more accurately, they are no different to the thought processes used by religious people to justify their beliefs. For example, if you trust that the bible is the word of God, then faith has evidence behind it by the standard you have laid out above.
Most religious people do not believe blindly, they have subjective evidence supporting their view just as you describe as trust. That you do not accept it is irrelevant, just as me rejecting your opinion on trust is irrelevant.
No. You're confusing trust with faith in your post. Trust is evidence based. Faith isn't.
EDIT: You should watch this.
Last edited:
No, I am not. You are defining identical positions in different ways because you cannot accept that your beliefs are subjective like everyone else's.
No I am not. I've added a video to my previous post which might help you understand my position. I doubt it will though, as I've been exceptionally clear on where I stand so far and yet you just dismiss everything I say and try to assert I'm wrong. Bit weird, as you can not possibly know how I approach life and how I think, but hey.
What a bizarre stance. If a god exists why are you suggesting that said god is "killing" African babies?
Also, what has innocence got to do with it? Is it okay to kill African babies that aren't innocent? Are African babies more important than other babies?
Not really bizarre. If the god of the bible is benevolent as Christians claim, why are African babies born with AIDS ? Why do African babies die from famine and drought ?
This goes back to theodicy. The biggest thorn in the side of believers. Why does a benevolent god allow bad things to happen ? It's not about free will either, as babies have no free will.
The problem is your posts haven't been about how you think, but about how others should share your thought process. At no point have I criticised how you think, all I have said is that how you think is no different to how others think. You have essentially rationalised your faith in logical positivism and given it an alternative term so you can present it as better than alternative viewpoints also taken without evidence. This is exactly the same process people who accept the bible being the word of God go through.
You have also spent a lot of time insisting you know how others think at the same time as you declare their thought processes wrong, because you are unwilling to acknowledge the similarity to your own process.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 6,028
- Location
- melee island
Faith is a noun.
Trust is a verb.
Just thought I would mention this, and that I would agree with an earlier poster that they can be synonymous [closely associated] to one another.
Trust is a verb.
Just thought I would mention this, and that I would agree with an earlier poster that they can be synonymous [closely associated] to one another.
Wow. You've made a lot of assumptions in that post and they are all wrong. You haven't taken on board anything I have said, all you have done is argue the opposite.
Everything I have said is my honest opinion. I stand by it 100% till proven otherwise. If you disagree, and you do, then we must agree to disagree and move on. It seems like this discussion has run it's course.
Last edited:
It doesn't really disprove 'god' or a higher intelligence, to do that you'd have to prove how the universe came into being out of absolutely nothing, prove that is, not just theorise.
The article says that life follows the laws of nature, where do they come from? where does the law of gravity come from? if the universe is so chaotic/random and with no intelligence behind it then how come it is so predictable and organised?
TLDR: Even if organised religion is scientifically disproved it doesn't mean that the universe is godless.
The article says that life follows the laws of nature, where do they come from? where does the law of gravity come from? if the universe is so chaotic/random and with no intelligence behind it then how come it is so predictable and organised?
TLDR: Even if organised religion is scientifically disproved it doesn't mean that the universe is godless.
Last edited:
Prove god and then we can talk. Till then I claim magic Hobbits created the universe.