Evolution and Creationism both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

[McBell]

Of everything that can possibly be known, what percentage of that everything do you think science knows. 10%, 30%, 70% ?????? Let's assume that science knows 50% of everything that can possibly be known, which is a far stretch btw. Out of the other 50%, would it be possible for a God to exist somewhere within that other 50%? To answer that question you must base your answer on assumptions, and untestable science, since science cannot test what they do not know. In fact you are basing your belief that God does not exist on assumptions not testable science, yet that is what you accuse God believers of.

Is there a cure for cancer? Is there a cure for Parkinsons? Is there a cure for aids? Since there isn't would it be wise to assume that there are no cures and we should stop looking. The science you say you embrace is hoping that cures do exist and are presently searching to find what doesn't yet exist.

Nice little rant.
To bad it is completely irrelevant to the post you replied to, the thread topic in general, and the OP.

I can understand the position of the agnostic, because they do not yet know, but the arrogance of atheism to base a claim that God doesn't exist on mere assumptions is foolish in my opinion.

Interesting how much this statement here reveals your hypocrisy.
For the "arrogance of the atheist" is NOTHING compared to the arrogance of the theist.
Not only do you theists claim god exists on mere assumptions, you go to great lengths to tell the world all about your imaginary friend and how he is unknowable.

 

[Autodidact]

Of everything that can possibly be known, what percentage of that everything do you think science knows. 10%, 30%, 70% ??????

I'd say .01%. Let's assume that science knows 50% of everything that can possibly be known, which is a far stretch btw. Out of the other 50%, would it be possible for a God to exist somewhere within that other 50%? [/quote] this is not a smart way to take your argument, Danmac. Yes, it's possible. It's equally possible that the Ogopogo, the Tooth Fairy, elves and the Flying Spaghetti monster exist in the same place. The fact that we haven't found evidence for something is not a good reason to believe it exists.

To answer that question you must base your answer on assumptions, and untestable science, since science cannot test what they do not know. In fact you are basing your belief that God does not exist on assumptions not testable science, yet that is what you accuse God believers of.

It's the same assumption you use in every other area of your life, a reasonable assumption. I'm sure there are millions of things that exist that we know nothing of, but, of course, we have no way of knowing what they may be. You can't organize your life around the possibility that they may exist, or life would be unmanageable. So you say, provisionally (all scientific knowledge is provisional) that they do not appear to, based on what we know at this time, and you organize your life around that provisional assumption. That's the rational way to proceed. Otherwise you couldn't get out of bed in the morning, because after all there may be divine invisible spirits that you're squishing with your feet unless you recite a special chant before rising.

Is there a cure for cancer? Is there a cure for Parkinsons? Is there a cure for aids? Since there isn't would it be wise to assume that there are no cures and we should stop looking. The science you say you embrace is hoping that cures do exist and are presently searching to find what doesn't yet exist.

God, by definition, is outside the scope of science.

I can understand the position of the agnostic, because they do not yet know, but the arrogance of atheism to base a claim that God doesn't exist on mere assumptions is foolish in my opinion.

What's really arrogant is to assert that something does exist, and you know what it is and what it wants, without evidence. Now that takes arrogance.

One of the many things you don't know is what these words mean. It is entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnosticism is a position about what is knowable. It sounds like you're an agnostic theist.

My position is that we do know that God does not exist, and we can talk about that in a different thread if you like, because it has nothing to do with this one.

In a nutshell, "We have no evidence that X exists" is not a good argument for, "X exists."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of everything that can possibly be known, what percentage of that everything do you think science knows. 10%, 30%, 70% ?????? Let's assume that science knows 50% of everything that can possibly be known, which is a far stretch btw. Out of the other 50%, would it be possible for a God to exist somewhere within that other 50%? To answer that question you must base your answer on assumptions, and untestable science, since science cannot test what they do not know. In fact you are basing your belief that God does not exist on assumptions not testable science, yet that is what you accuse God believers of.

No... there's none of that in speaking out against the idea that Creationism is supported by science.

And while I freely admit that there's limits to our knowledge, whether you want to place your beliefs outside those limits is up to you. I don't know about you, but most God believers I know actually make knowledge claims; it's not good enough for them to hold opinions about God with no rational basis that just maybe might be coincidentally correct. But hey - if it makes you happy to have no good reason to believe what you do, while pointing out that we can't disprove your belief (kinda like Tree Lobsters - you can't prove they don't exist!), then fine.

 

[Danmac]

No... there's none of that in speaking out against the idea that Creationism is supported by science.

And while I freely admit that there's limits to our knowledge, whether you want to place your beliefs outside those limits is up to you. I don't know about you, but most God believers I know actually make knowledge claims; it's not good enough for them to hold opinions about God with no rational basis that just maybe might be coincidentally correct. But hey - if it makes you happy to have no good reason to believe what you do, while pointing out that we can't disprove your belief (kinda like Tree Lobsters - you can't prove they don't exist!), then fine.

Believers have evidence that God does exist. The evidence is our own spiritual birthing. That is a real experience without the pretty colors. You have to have your own experience though, because I cannot prove my experience to you. I can only tell you that I had one.

 

[Danmac]

I'd say .01%.

Is it possible for God to exist in the 99.99% percent that we don't know about?

In a nutshell, "We have no evidence that X exists" is not a good argument for, "X exists."

I can accept the agnostic view, because they do not know, but to say with certainty that God doesn't exist, as the atheist does is a bit premature.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Whoever said that is ridiculous...that statement is ridiculous.

:clap

Yes....I thought so as well....

 

[Autodidact]

Believers have evidence that God does exist. The evidence is our own spiritual birthing. That is a real experience without the pretty colors. You have to have your own experience though, because I cannot prove my experience to you. I can only tell you that I had one.

That only causes you worse problems. To begin with, you have to give the same credence to every one else's spiritual rebirth, most of which contradict yours. And that means you believe things that contradict each other. And you know what that means, right?

There are other, simpler and more likely explanations for these experiences. For example, why do they always track the religion the individual was raised to believe? Coincidence?

 

[Autodidact]

Is it possible for God to exist in the 99.99% percent that we don't know about?

Definitely. Also the tooth fairy, don't forget.

I can accept the agnostic view, because they do not know, but to say with certainty that God doesn't exist, as the atheist does is a bit premature.

I'm sorry, I'm sick and tired of talking to someone without the basic courtesy to answer a direct and polite question. Bye.

 

[Tristesse]

Is it possible for God to exist in the 99.99% percent that we don't know about?



I can accept the agnostic view, because they do not know, but to say with certainty that God doesn't exist, as the atheist does is a bit premature.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. For example, you can believe that a god doesn't exist (atheism) and also not know whether a god exists (agnosticism). Most atheists that I've encountered don't claim to know that a god doesn't exists, they just don't believe that one does.

 

[Autodidact]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. For example, you can believe that a god doesn't exist (atheism) and also not know whether a god exists (agnosticism). Most atheists that I've encountered don't claim to know that a god doesn't exists, they just don't believe that one does.

But that's so arrogant, basing their beliefs on the evidence like that!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Believers have evidence that God does exist. The evidence is our own spiritual birthing. That is a real experience without the pretty colors. You have to have your own experience though, because I cannot prove my experience to you. I can only tell you that I had one.

Is it possible for God to exist in the 99.99% percent that we don't know about?
I can accept the agnostic view, because they do not know, but to say with certainty that God doesn't exist, as the atheist does is a bit premature.

Once again.
This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a deity, atheism or agnosticism.

From the OP...

Example of one previously given to explain my 50:50 position, evolution and creationism cancel each other out, both have equal value and scientific evidence to support them.

I have left out the posters name to avoid "calling out" another member.
But I would like to know if anyone who agrees with this statement would care to provide the scientific "Creationist" evidence that is equal to the evidence supporting the ToE.

 

[Danmac]

But that's so arrogant, basing their beliefs on the evidence like that!

What evidence?

 

[Autodidact]

What evidence?

For example, the evidence that your God does not grant prayers at any greater rate than random chance. That is very strong evidence that either your God does not exist, or is a liar.

 

[Draka]

There are other, simpler and more likely explanations for these experiences. For example, why do they always track the religion the individual was raised to believe? Coincidence?

They don't always. If that were true, there wouldn't be any conversions would there. My experiences weren't anywhere in the realm of the religion I was brought up in. I had experiences dating back to at least 13 y/o, which is when I knew I wasn't Christian. I had beliefs which were based on experiences which were in line with Wicca long before I even ever heard of Wicca, let alone knew anything about it. I literally had no idea there was a religion that held the same beliefs as me. That there were people who had experiences as mine. Not until my mid-twenties did I start to figure all this out. So no, they don't always track the religion the individual was raised to believe.


Just thought I'd throw in my two-cents about that. Now, it's an entirely different thing when people hold beliefs that hinge on science being one big conspiracy out to turn the world away from god...which is what some of these whack-a-doos actually think. If your beliefs can't handle what facts science reveals, then you need to re-evaluate your beliefs entirely. :yes:

 

[Danmac]

For example, the evidence that your God does not grant prayers at any greater rate than random chance. That is very strong evidence that either your God does not exist, or is a liar.

I suppose if he granted all of em we would get the idea that he is a genie in a bottle.

 

[Autodidact]

They don't always. If that were true, there wouldn't be any conversions would there. My experiences weren't anywhere in the realm of the religion I was brought up in. I had experiences dating back to at least 13 y/o, which is when I knew I wasn't Christian. I had beliefs which were based on experiences which were in line with Wicca long before I even ever heard of Wicca, let alone knew anything about it. I literally had no idea there was a religion that held the same beliefs as me. That there were people who had experiences as mine. Not until my mid-twenties did I start to figure all this out. So no, they don't always track the religion the individual was raised to believe.


Just thought I'd throw in my two-cents about that. Now, it's an entirely different thing when people hold beliefs that hinge on science being one big conspiracy out to turn the world away from god...which is what some of these whack-a-doos actually think. If your beliefs can't handle what facts science reveals, then you need to re-evaluate your beliefs entirely. :yes:

Yes, I shouldn't say always. The great majority of the time.

 

[Autodidact]

I suppose if he granted all of em we would get the idea that he is a genie in a bottle.

1. Or we might begin to suspect that He exists!

2. So He's a liar then? Cuz, y'know, Jesus repeatedly promises to grant them.

The simpler explanation for God's failure to grant prayers, or indeed to intervene in any way in the real world, such as preventing unjust and needless suffering, is that He does not exist.

That's the kind of evidence I'm talking about, Danmac.

Also the absence of evidence for God's existence that you started a separate thread to justify, combined with the reasonabel supposition that one should not accept the existence of entities without supporting evidence.

 

[Autodidact]

I suppose if he granted all of em we would get the idea that he is a genie in a bottle.

Not all of them, Danmac, none of them. God grants prayers at the exact same rate as if He did not exist. What a coincidence!

 

[Danmac]

1. Or we might begin to suspect that He exists!

I doubt that.

2. So He's a liar then? Cuz, y'know, Jesus repeatedly promises to grant them.

Jesus promises to grant things that line up with God's will.

The simpler explanation for God's failure to grant prayers, or indeed to intervene in any way in the real world, such as preventing unjust and needless suffering, is that He does not exist.

So why did you choose to inflict suffering on people in your past? That is if you did.

Also the absence of evidence for God's existence that you started a separate thread to justify, combined with the reasonabel supposition that one should not accept the existence of entities without supporting evidence.

I was merely provoking the thought. Debating rarely changes the other persons mind.

 

[Autodidact]

I doubt that.

Are you calling me a liar? On what basis?

Jesus promises to grant things that line up with God's will.

Really? Have you read the Bible at all?

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Now comes the part where you explain how it means something completely different from what it says.

So why did you choose to inflict suffering on people in your past? That is if you did.

Cuz I'm not God.

I was merely provoking the thought. Debating rarely changes the other persons mind.

Wait, now you're backtracking and asserting that God DOES provide sufficient evidence of His existence? So this whole thing was a stupid rabbit-hole?

*makes not to self not to take Danmac's bait in future*