Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Which is nothing more than an assumption
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why designed?
- Thread starter lunakilo
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes, but its a good assumption, that makes sense.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
To you at this point in time -not to everyone -and the fact that some who believe there is a God make false claims does not mean you are correct that there is no God.
It would be possible to say a specifically-defined God did not exist if the definition included known falsehood, but you cannot logically and honestly say there is no God in general.
Last edited:
psychoslice
Veteran Member
And it doesn't mean you are correct, can you handle that, I can.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
I'm cool with that. If we do not constantly reassess our beliefs, we do not learn.
I never assume I am correct -which allows my understanding to become more correct.
Please note edit of last post.
I never assume I am correct -which allows my understanding to become more correct.
Please note edit of last post.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"but you cannot logically and honestly say there is no God in general."
Right and you can't say there is one either. Although tons of a people do and say its a fact.
If everyone were really honest it would be I don't know.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
One individual might be honest in saying I don't know -another saying I know for a fact. The fact that you don't know doesn't necessarily apply to all.
Assuming God does not exist -none could honestly say they knew for a fact he did exist because he did not. Therefore it would be impossible.
Assuming God does exist -some could possibly say they know for a fact God does exist because they know for a fact God does exist because they have seen proof. Therefore it would be possible.
Another would not have to believe them -and none would likely be convinced -but that's not the same thing.
"Everyone" and "I" are different -Everyone can't be honest for an individual. An individual can be honest -and a knowledgeable minority -because they no longer assumed -while everyone continued to know not and assume this or that.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"The fact that you don't know doesn't necessarily apply to all."
I understand although I am talking more about evidence and observation of all.
Then there is the fact of the sheer number of God's well into the millions.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
I am not an atheist personally, but
"Richard Carrier, in Sense and Goodness Without God, writes on page 255:But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.
In other words, if you are a Christian, you probably don't believe in the existence of Allah, Vishnu or any of the myriad of other gods that people have followed throughout history. I don't believe in those gods either, so in this sense I'm not all that different to you. The only small difference is that I believe in one less God."
"Richard Carrier, in Sense and Goodness Without God, writes on page 255:But if the idea of a god is inherently illogical (if the very idea is self-contradictory or meaningless), or if it is contradicted by the evidence, then there are strong positive reasons to take a harder stance as an atheist – with respect to that particular god. For in this sense, even believers are strong atheists – they deny the existence of hundreds of gods. Atheists like me merely deny one more god than everyone else already does – in fact, I deny the existence of the same god already denied by believers in other gods, so I am not doing anything that billions of people don’t do already.
In other words, if you are a Christian, you probably don't believe in the existence of Allah, Vishnu or any of the myriad of other gods that people have followed throughout history. I don't believe in those gods either, so in this sense I'm not all that different to you. The only small difference is that I believe in one less God."
It not about how it looks or what it is made of but how well it works. People simply can not believe just by surviving you could make something that works so well. There are no other examples of things that work well yet were not designed.
For example your program, a car, a house. If you want to defeat design you have to show things that aren't designed yet work well.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Personally, I think that's a misuse of the word "fact".
Sorry. One of the properties of a fact is that it's verifiable.What I think you really meant to say is conviction. Someone can be convinced about something, but it doesn't make it a fact. Of course it's a fact that they're convinced, but the thing they're convinced about isn't a "fact" per se, but just a conviction.
Wikipedia puts it this way: "Fact is sometimes used synonymously with truth, as distinct from opinions, falsehoods, or matters of taste. "
shawn001
Well-Known Member
This is because of your human perspective. Which is also part of this "People simply can not believe", but what people believe is not the same as the evidence.
The ID movement which is really creationism in disguise try to use Irreducible complexity as an argument but failed badly
You should watch or read this.
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."
But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."
But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
We are human and we rely on our perspective and experience heavily to get through the day to day. We are limited by time, want and ability on what we can learn. People will always rely on belief which is why ID and creationism and many other non-scientific things will never die. Why does everyone need to be a scientist.
We lived hundreds of thousands of years without knowledge of a lot of stuff, evolution included do we need 100% of the population to agree on anything for us to survive in the future. Are we really damaging our youth so much that our future is lost because of ID and Creationism.
Not really its just a bug that crawled up some peoples ________.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Why does everyone need to be a scientist."
They don;'t and perhaps some shouldn't if they base science on beliefs.
"We lived hundreds of thousands of years without knowledge of a lot of stuff, evolution included" Tell that to modern medicine and all the sciences.
The is also the part of getting hit by an asteroid and now we are beginning to be able to do something about it.
"Are we really damaging our youth so much that our future is lost because of ID and Creationism."
The means at which the ID movement started and how they are going at it with deception and lies and replacing the scientific evolutionary theory, yes.
Also, not one bit of evidence which they even admit too.
"JUDGE JOHN E. JONES, III: In an era where we're trying to cure cancer, where we're trying to prevent pandemics, where were trying to keep science and math education on the cutting edge in the United States, to introduce and teach bad science to ninth-grade students makesvery little sense to me. You know, garbage in garbage out. And it doesn't benefit any of us who benefit daily from scientific discoveries."
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial
Talking about it or even studying it is not the problem.
So We agree.
Are you saying we haven't lived 100000 of years without science and knowledge of evolution.
Is it evolution, creationism or ID that allows us to do something about asteroids and can you prove your answer.
So are we damaging our youth you haven't answered. Is evolution the only lie we are telling them. I can think of a few more. If they do advanced studies in Biology will they learn evolution. If they become a carpenter will they need evolution.
Says one person and I believe learning from mistakes is the best way to learn. So what does it all mean.
What is the problem?[/QUOTE]
Well now that goes against everything evolution states
shawn001
Well-Known Member
And go ahead Bob with "So are we damaging our youth you haven't answered. Is evolution the only lie we are telling them. I can think of a few more."
"Is evolution the only lie we are telling them."
I am sure your about to over through the scientific theory of evolution with your explanation next abd evidence you are about to provide for the world. Good luck I am counting on you..
"Is evolution the only lie we are telling them."
I am sure your about to over through the scientific theory of evolution with your explanation next abd evidence you are about to provide for the world. Good luck I am counting on you..