First cause of the universe.

[SkepticThinker]

Really? Who does that? Do I decide to believe I'm ruled by some human who doesn't exist?
I don't know anyone that does that, unless they are mentally unstable, but 96 percent of the population, including very intelligent people believe in gods.

Ever head of Thor? How about Athena?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe in your myoptic view of the topic. I suggest you actually learn from scripture so you can know what you speak of.

No, that's in your view, as you have described to us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

God created lightning. And science has no answer as to why we are here.

Okay so you've replaced "Thor" with "God." It's like you're trying to make my point for me.

Science tells us where lightning comes from, and it ain't from God(s). Rather, it's a completely natural process. Hence the reason you don't run into a lot of Thor believers these days.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would you think choice is arbitrary? That's not what I said. What we choose to learn or believe is certainly a choice. Every time.

That makes no sense to me at all and I explained why.

You haven't given a single example of how one could "choose" to believe something.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe in your myoptic view of the topic. I suggest you actually learn from scripture so you can know what you speak of.

I just go by what you said. Perhaps you didn't explain it well.

You were asked to provide a test that could demonstrate that your god exists.
You then provided such a "test".

And upon further questioning, it turned out that if the test fails, it doesn't mean god doesn't exist.

That's not a proper test.

That's rather "heads I win, tails you loose".

Off course, we all know that you don't have such a test.
For the simple reason that there is a prerequisite for such a test to exist. And the prerequisite is that one needs to define the thing to be tested in falsifiable manner.

You have no falsifiable definition of your god.
So there can be no test.

Unfalsifiable things are infinite in number.
Just like the undetectable dragon that follows you everywhere you go.
This is why such things require "faith" to be believed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question then is why did you stop asking? God being silent for awhile doesn't mean he isn't there.

Again: then what you claim to be a test, isn't a test at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's the same for everyone.

Then why did you make the point that there are no facts that disprove gods?
It's a meaningless point if you agree that it's positive beliefs that requires motivation.
Lacking such motivation would result in disbelief.
I don't require motivation for disbelief. Do you?
Disbelief is rather what I default to when I lack reasons for belief.

..or the flying spaghetti monster..

Sure. Any entity we both don't believe in will do. Funny how you cut out the actual example and the point being made though.

As there is no absolute way of knowing whether the Abrahamic G-d exists, it is up to you whether you believe it.

Bzzzt.

Again, no.
There are many things of which we have no "absolute way" of knowing if it is accurate or not. In fact, most things are like that.

Take a murder case.
There is no absolute way to know if X murdered Y. "proof" doesn't exist here. Evidence does - mostly circumstantial evidence.

And it's the evidence that will tilt you into belief (or not).
Lacking sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, will result in "not guilty" (and NOT in "innocent" btw).

Would you say that it is "upto you" in some type of arbitrary way if you are going to believe if the accused is guilty or not? Off course not. You will always have some reason to inform your position. Your reason might be bad / irrational (like "I don't like his face - he looks guilty"), but you'ld still have some reason informing your position.

Your belief will be informed by *something*. And "arbitrary choice" won't be it.

It is not a case of you being right, and me being wrong.
That is what you imply.

It is a case of it being nonsense that (sincere) belief is a matter of "choice".
It isn't.

Exactly !

You say "exactly", but the way you used it seems to say otherwise.
But I'll go ahead and assume that I misunderstood or that your wording was just unfortunate and didn't express what you really thought about it. Since you agree now, there's no need to argue it further.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God created lightning.

How does lightning work? - YouTube

And science has no answer as to why we are here.

Argument from ignorance in the making?

 

[Wildswanderer]

How does lightning work? - YouTube



Argument from ignorance in the making?

Science doesn't explain why the universe exists. The best you can do is " We don't know."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science doesn't explain why the universe exists. The best you can do is " We don't know."

But you can do better, right?

 

[Wildswanderer]

But you can do better, right?

Of course. We were created by a loving God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course. We were created by a loving God.

Yes, I know Her. She was bored and created Satan. He suggest that She create an atheistic universe, where we all die. She did that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science doesn't explain why the universe exists. The best you can do is " We don't know."

It explains far more than any belief in God does. So by your standard you should stop trying to insert God where you cannot justify his existenece.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course. We were created by a loving God.

Sorry, but there is no reliable evidence for that at all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..You will always have some reason to inform your position. Your reason might be bad / irrational (like "I don't like his face - he looks guilty"), but you'ld still have some reason informing your position..

..or in some cases, an excuse rather than a reason.

It is a case of it being nonsense that (sincere) belief is a matter of "choice".
It isn't.

Some choice is involved, yes.
For example, we can argue against belief, or be indifferent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some choice is involved, yes.
For example, we can argue against belief, or be indifferent.

How is that relevant?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science doesn't explain why the universe exists. The best you can do is " We don't know."

Which is an honest answer when we don't know.

Making sh!t up, is not useful nor honest.

 

[Luchito Prays]

A singularity was likely under intense pressure. Then expansion followed. Not an astronomer or astrophysicist. Just my best short stab. Correct me if need be.

That singularity, according to Lemaitre, was a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing.

So far, "nothing" can't cause any intense pressure, because is "nothing".

A microscopic particle (called the "primeval atom" in his times) can't, by any means, expand and form galaxies.

No way.

In my opinion, that theory of the Big Bang doesn't fit in science.

Now when you know what the Big Bang theory is about, what do you think?

 

[rational experiences]

As a human who doesn't theory about what I know no one knows. I don't.

As a human whose Living position is only on earth a planet I would preach the relativity of our human life is on earth only.

I would claim earth a planet a deity to enforce my human rights to live safely on the planet versus self destructive human personalities.

I would preach the sun big bang blasted itself why I know the advice as it's light conditions are above me in earths heavens.

And as a biological living consciousness I Iive and I die in the exact same light conditions. Hence my conscious awareness was about sun to earth changes.

As a taught human only thinker. I don't displace my being or why my self purpose is only human survival on planet earth.

I taught myself a human baby owns living human genesis about 120 years the same as an old man human who experienced living the life span.

So I'm totally human informed first.

As a human is a human as a human only owning life by human sex I was taught by myself don't lie. As it's an inerrant human condition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That singularity, according to Lemaitre, was a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing.

So far, "nothing" can't cause any intense pressure, because is "nothing".

A microscopic particle (called the "primeval atom" in his times) can't, by any means, expand and form galaxies.

No way.

In my opinion, that theory of the Big Bang doesn't fit in science.

Now when you know what the Big Bang theory is about, what do you think?

How would you know what "nothing" is? You are thinking of something in the vacuum of space. Space is not nothing, it is something.