Mellor wrote: » The personality of god is made up my man. If they are wrong, it has no bearing on the existence of a god.
Sure. But it's humans collective arrogance to thing we are important to a deity over all other species and places in the universe.
You can not play a sport, but you can't play a not-sport. However, you can believe the is no-God.
Akesh wrote: » You can rule out pink unicorns all you want but that doesn't mean that at some point they didn't exist. Your beliefs aren't facts and that what you have done. You're wrong when you suggest we do have answers. The Big Bang Theory isn't a fact, it's a scientific theory. Obviously the argument of creationism has logical problems e.g. what created the 'creator', but until we know what happened, we can only speculate. What is extraordinary is trying to claim you have answers to questions that you don't understand. You ruling out something doesn't make it a fact.
Still waters wrote: » What evidence ?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » We might prove every religion on the planet to be false and yet there still be a god, yes. but without any evidence it's pointless speculation.
Atheism is non-belief in any of the gods which have been postulated. That's it. Going further and saying that it is a fact that no gods exist is something else. This has been labelled Gnostic Atheism.
Sam Quentin wrote: » What evidence:: the fact that you can even think and speak..... Is a minute miniscule tiny bit of evidence for you. Can you not see that!?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Sure it is possible that a deistic entity created the universe. We have precisely zero evidence that said entity ever interfered at any moment since, and since the possibility of such an entity cannot be proven or disproven, and it is outside of our universe and does not interfere with it, I regard it as an interesting but ultimately completely irrelevant question.
Atheists may or may not assert that there is/are no god/gods. But what they all have in common is that they do not believe in any gods
Not this fallacy again. Atheism is a belief system in the same sense that not playing tennis is a sport.
In the absence of any evidence, asserting that they exist or existed is ridiculous.
karlitob wrote: » This is just silly now. How can not believing in something make me a believer.
I presume you believe in some form of magic man in the sky. How much contempt you must have in your own faith that you can equate your leap of faith with my absence of faith?
As another poster said here - this reasoning is the same as saying not playing tennis is the same as playing sport.
I know you believers love to be told what to think but you can stop telling me what I do and don’t believe in.
You’re going back on your points regarding theories. I know we can test the theory of gravity. You had made reference to theories which don’t have any answers or questions that can’t be answered. I stated that we do have answers, and learning more all the time. The difference between religion and science is that science doesn’t state from self declared moral authority of what is right or wrong. It provides evidence and changes depending on the evidence. Science doesn’t stop learning. Religion says it already knows the answers. I can possibly state that there is no such thing as pink unicorns as a fact.
Mellor wrote: » Gravity is also a theory. I don’t think there’s any question over the existence of gravity. Being a theory doesn’t mean there is any doubt. Most scientific theorys are based on test results. Including the big bang.
pauldla wrote: » This is a good opportunity, perhaps, to look again at the meaning and usage of scientific terms.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/ In short, in science, theories explain facts.
Akesh wrote: » This is where you continue to argue based on your perception of what I believe and a failure to read what I have said. I'm not suggesting that a god exists or existed. I'm saying that you cannot state one has never existed.
Science doesn't always work that way, e.g. social sciences.
But I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. The big bang is not a theory of origin.
I'm not sure why atheists continually wave the big bang theory around as some of weapon against religion.
Akesh wrote: » Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Gravity is a testable theory. The big bang only explains certain aspects of what we see but it's not a theory of origin and has no relevance to religion/atheism.
AllForIt wrote: » By virtue of the fact they exhibit it in the first place I suppose. And by other ppl exhibiting that same behaviour as well. If one person and only one person was noted for behaving in a specific way that no one else ever did, that would be unusual and unique. But I can't think of any human behaviour that is is practised by only one person and noone else, ever.
Mellor wrote: » It’s pretty simple, I’m not sure what part you don’t get. You claimed the Big Bang was not a fact, as it was a theory. Presumably that was an attempt to disprove or exclude its relevance. I pointed out gravity was a theory to highlight that being a theory doesn’t exclude something from being a fact.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Pretty ironic given what you say above that you'd put words in the mouths of others, then. BTW you are going nowhere with this "never existed" thing. If a god existed in the past but doesn't now, it's not much of a god, so it is reasonable to assume that any postulated god exists either eternally or not at all.
Social sciences are not science.
It's a theory which describes the development of our universe from the earliest possible time. It doesn't make any claim as to anything outside of that which may or may not exist.
It rules out the possibility that our universe was created by a theistic entity who intervenes in that universe. It's a lethal weapon as far as theism is concerned. It does not rule out the possibility of a deistic creator, but I don't really care either way about that, it's unknowable and makes no difference.
Akesh wrote: » You're still wrong. It is not a fact. A scientific theory doesn't mean something is factual.
Nice strawman argument though.
Akesh wrote: » That is not an argument. I never said a God existed in the past and doesn't now.
No, it's not. It's a theory of our observable universe form the earliest known period. They key words being known and observable.
No, it does not. Please stop with this indoctrinated atheist nonsense.
I suppose you know what dark energy is so making a statement like that?!! :pac:
Mellor wrote: » We are an incredibly self centered species, with a massive sense of self importance. That applies to Theists and Atheists alike btw. If a creator created the whole universe, then we are one of the harmful parts.
PHG wrote: » Spooky like what? I assume you have read all 12 gospels too, not just Matthew, Mark, Lake and John?
karlitob wrote: » Everything based on science.
The burden is on you to provide the evidence (extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence)
Rock77 wrote: » Good question, I would say of course it is possible for you to know.
Although to add to that I would ask you, if I don’t know God exists and you (or indeed anyone) is not able to prove it to me, why would I believe it?
antiskeptic wrote: » A hobby horse answer. As in: rare as around here. You wouldn't. Or, in my view at least, shouldn't.
antiskeptic wrote: » It is an extraordinary claim to suppose that my lacking a proof means I can't know something to be the case.
A person who has religious convictions about the scope of science ("everything is based on science") can believe a proof is necessary in order to know something.
Is it possible that I know God exists - even whilst not being able to prove it to you?
Rock77 wrote: » I do like the debate sometimes but it’s so circular it’s ridiculous.
nthclare wrote: » But I believe in the fact that some religious messages have good intentions and do help people who are stressed out or down in the dumps.
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » How do you in history? And how do you do it now? With all the evidence etc.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Is it? Scroll back and see which user's messages he "mysteriously" didn't reply to. Discussion gets ridiculous when one party makes a habit of getting out of it.
Rock77 wrote: » Sorry I didn’t really mean the debate here or with posters here. I meant the debates I have with friends or family (or my wife after a few drinks!) One party kind of has to get out of it to be honest because they believe in something they can’t prove exists. Now if their belief in this thing they can’t prove exists doesn’t impact on others in a negative way then there would be no issue.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
