leroy
Well-Known Member
How fo you know its authentic?The Natural History Museum has a complete fossilised skeleton on display.
All you have are testimonies from people who claim that have studied the bones.
Do testimonies count as evidence?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How fo you know its authentic?The Natural History Museum has a complete fossilised skeleton on display.
Ok so in that case the burden proof is on you.No we're not, arguments, claims and beliefs do not have any credence because they are not refute, or disproved, that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
All claims and beliefs carry a burden of proof, disbelieving a claim does not.
You might consider, however, that there is also no hypothesis of God's existence in science yet. Therefore, it is not me being unscientific, but you.TRANSLATION:
"Evangelicalhumanist's personal unscientific opinion is what there is no God." Why unscientific? Because there is no hypothesis of God's non-existence in Science yet.
Do you mean explain why I disagree with your points 2 and 3, as that was what you asked, "which of these do you disagree with."Ok would you show that 2 is wrong ? Would you show that there are things have no explanation and that would be explained if we postulate the existence of stegosaurus?
2 non of those things would be explained if we postulate the existence of a stegosaurus
3 some of this things would have an explanation if we postulate the existence of God. .......(Say we define God as an inteligente being that excist independently of the universe)
Me: "Gnostic Atheists say that there is no God. Nevertheless, scientists have not come to this Atheism's claim. Are you smarter than scientists? Why doesn't science say there is no God?"
She: "Do I think that scientists are madder than me? Atheists do not do this. The one who claims must prove the claim and not vice versa."
Me: Atheists make a lot of claims. For example, they say there is no God. Does this phrase carry absolutely no meaning and no information? If it does, then they claim that there is no God. So, atheists do claim, and not only their Atheism claims. Atheists repeat the claims of Atheism.
If you don't like the atheists "No belief in God"....
It carries no information. It is just definition of Atheism, which is simply "No God". No new info is presented by "No belief in God".
1. Most of humankind is perfectly sure, there is God. They even feel God and talk to God.
2. Most of humankind is not crazy.
This 1+2 is very strong evidence.
All theists are right in one dogma: There is God. Some theists, like Einstein, are wrong that the God is not a personal god; but they are right that there is God. Polytheists are right that there is God, but wrong about His quantity.
Ok so in that case the burden proof is on you.
Prove to me that there are any authentic stegosaurus fossils.
No, there is conjecture of God's existence in Science: P vs NP Millennium Prize Problem.You might consider, however, that there is also no hypothesis of God's existence in science yet. Therefore, it is not me being unscientific, but you.
If you think the claim is true, then you are affirming your belief that they taste crappy to you.
you dont have an explanation for why the universe is FT
The dictionaries are written by sinners, atheists are sinners. They have written definition of magic with satanic agenda.Magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces."
Assigning omnipotence to a deity is just an assumption, not an explanation, it's also a begging the question fallacy.No, there is conjecture of God's existence in Science: P vs NP Millennium Prize Problem.
It asks can the problems be solved easily,
God is omnipotent, so yes.
It is unscientific to find flaws in my religion. Because Science does not study religions.Assigning omnipotence to a deity is just an assumption, not an explanation, it's also a begging the question fallacy.
The dictionaries are written by sinners, atheists are sinners. They have written definition of magic with satanic agenda.
Please look for definition of miracle, wonder in dictionaries.
No thats not evidenceI already posted evidence, The Natural History Museum has assembled a complete fossilised skeleton, and has it on display, as the article said there are over 80 specimens that have been found.
I'm not playing this game with you again.1 you dont have an explanation for why the universe is FT
2 if God exist, his existence would explain why the universe is FT
Any currently-unidentified poop in the forest doesn't have a known good explanation. If it had one, the poop wouldn't be unidentified.But appart from stegosaurus there sre other possible explanations and some of these explanations are better ....agree ?
Assigning omnipotence to a deity is just an assumption, not an explanation, it's also a begging the question fallacy.
It is unscientific to find flaws in my religion. Because Science does not study religions.
No thats not evidence
That is just an assertion
Science studies empirical claims.It is unscientific to find flaws in my religion. Because Science does not study religions.