Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Sonofason]

What does that have to do with what we were talking about?

Well, you see, babies can't walk. It's impossible. They're just not strong enough to walk. But they keep trying, don't they. They see they are getting stronger, and they keep trying. They never lose hope. If they did, if it were possible to extinguish such hopes in a small child, I believe they would never be able to walk, until they are given hope.

 

[Sonofason]

Or any other branch of human knowledge.

Yes, yes, thanks for being so predictable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, you see, babies can't walk. It's impossible. They're just not strong enough to walk. But they keep trying, don't they. They see they are getting stronger, and they keep trying. They never lose hope. If they did, if it were possible to extinguish such hopes in a small child, I believe they would never be able to walk, until they are given hope.

That much is obvious. But what does that have to do with the subject you were discussing (posts #547 and previous, mainly #530, #528, #524)?

Are you implying that we godless heathens should "hope for faith in God" or something along those lines?

I hope you are not.

 

[Sonofason]

That much is obvious. But what does that have to do with the subject you were discussing (posts #547 and previous, mainly #530, #528, #524)?

Are you implying that we godless heathens should "hope for faith in God" or something along those lines?

I hope you are not.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[serp777]

Well which God for starters? No religion has better evidence than any other religion? No person on Earth has special knowledge that tells them the correct info about God. The agnostics are the most reasonable.

 

[Sonofason]

Dating fossils and the age of the earth

"When a fossil is discovered, it is not dated using any form of radiometric dating:

"Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."[1]

So how is it dated?

"Paleontologists cannot operate this way. There is no way simply to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from."[2]

"Fossils help geologists figure out the ages of rock strata and the times at which animals and plants lived."[3]

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."[4]

"Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie."[5]

"Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology. The age of rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them."[6]

The rocks they are found in date the fossils. It is impossible to really know how old a fossil is unless you know what rock layer it was found in. Therefore, how do you know how old the rocks are? By what fossils are present! Certain types of fossils are called index fossils, and their presence determines what age the rock is. So, the fossils date the rocks, but the rocks date the fossils. That is a prime example of circular reasoning. Clearly the Geologic Column is based upon faulty reasoning, and is itself a faulty system. In fact, it does not exist anywhere in full form on this globe. Not one geologist could take you to a place on the earth and show the entire Geologic Column. The only place it exists is in the textbooks and the imaginations of scientists.

Some think that radiometric dating verifies the ages of the rocks, but even radiometric dating is calibrated to the Column:

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."[7]"
References:

1. Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425.
2. Eldredge, Niles, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria" (New York: Simon ad Schuster, 1985), p. 51.
3. Hirschfeld, Sue Ellen, "Earth-History of the Earth," World Book Encyclopedia, vol.6(1996), p. 26.
4. O'Rourke, J.E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976), p. 53.
5. Welles, Samuel Paul, "Fossils," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (1978), p. 364.
6. Welles, Samuel Paul, "Paleontology," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (1978), p. 85.
7. O'Rourke, J.E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January, 1976) p. 54.

TrueAuthority.com - Creation vs Evolution - Reason In Circles Together

 

[Sees]

Well which God for starters? No religion has better evidence than any other religion? No person on Earth has special knowledge that tells them the correct info about God. The agnostics are the most reasonable.

It's more likely for some people to have special theological knowledge than for you to know the knowledge limits of every person on earth.

I think you are also assuming a bit much when it comes to evidence - possibly doing the popular thing of confusing evidence with proof?

People use/promote agnosticism as it suits and make bold, unprovable claims when it suits them

 

[outhouse]

The agnostics are the most reasonable.

I don't see it that way.

We have more then enough evidence only man creates deities.

Man defined Jesus divinity at the council of Nicea.

Israelites compiled two deities into one giving all El's traits to Yahweh.

These are not even in dispute.

 

[outhouse]

People use/promote agnosticism as it suits and make bold, unprovable claims when it suits them

Agreed.

To me they are wishy washy.

Nothing wrong with saying I don't know, or Im not sure, without needing a label of non committal.

 

[serp777]

It's more likely for some people to have special theological knowledge than for you to know the knowledge limits of every person on earth.

I think you are also assuming a bit much when it comes to evidence - possibly doing the popular thing of confusing evidence with proof?

People use/promote agnosticism as it suits and make bold, unprovable claims when it suits them

Your first sentence contains special knowledge in itself--the first assumption is that there is a limit to knowledge, and the second is that you know it's more likely for some people to have special theological knowledge than I know people don't. Tell me how you calculated that probability. The mathematical community would be extremely interested, as would I.

And I'm not confusing the two, unless you can point out specifically how I am confusing the two terms.

it's also ironic that you say agnosticism makes bold, unprovable claims. the entire point of agnosticism is that we don't know the true nature of reality, and as a religious person, which i'm guessing you are, you are claiming to know truth in the universe.

 

[serp777]

I don't see it that way.

We have more then enough evidence only man creates deities.

Man defined Jesus divinity at the council of Nicea.

Israelites compiled two deities into one giving all El's traits to Yahweh.

These are not even in dispute.

Still, while it appears fictional, there is no proof that a supreme deity (or deities) cannot or does not exist.

 

[Sees]

Your first sentence contains special knowledge in itself--the first assumption is that there is a limit to knowledge, and the second is that you know it's more likely for some people to have special theological knowledge than I know people don't. Tell me how you calculated that probability. The mathematical community would be extremely interested, as would I.

And I'm not confusing the two, unless you can point out specifically how I am confusing the two terms.

it's also ironic that you say agnosticism makes bold, unprovable claims. the entire point of agnosticism is that we don't know the true nature of reality, and as a religious person, which i'm guessing you are, you are claiming to know truth in the universe.

Actually you first assumed a limit to knowledge, not I.

I never said agnosticism makes bold, unprovable claims. It's the old "I don't know, so nobody knows" that I mentioned - which people promoting agnosticism often jump to next, right in the face of their agnosticism.

Bold, unprovable negative claims are just as likely off and hasty as bold, unprovable positive claims but tend to get a default pass on forums like this.

Certain types of evidence certain religions most certainly do have over certain others. The obviousness of it is why I gave the benefit of the doubt that evidence was being confused with proof.

 

[outhouse]

Still, while it appears fictional, .

Its not fictional, per say.

Its not something they created in their life times. It is something they lived around and government changed and redefined the concepts at will.

there is no proof that a supreme deity (or deities) cannot or does not exist

There is no proof whether my yellow plastic squeaky bath ducky did not created the whole universe.

But all plausibility in reality states, there is no chance. Same with ancient men's mythology. There is no chance at all any of it applies to reality.


Scientifically no god of any kind exist at this point in time. WE don't need proof. Those that make the claims however do.

And this covers agnosticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hope you find what you're looking for.

Mind to answer?

 

[serp777]

Actually you first assumed a limit to knowledge, not I.

I never said agnosticism makes bold, unprovable claims. It's the old "I don't know, so nobody knows" that I mentioned - which people promoting agnosticism often jump to next, right in the face of their agnosticism.

Bold, unprovable negative claims are just as likely off and hasty as bold, unprovable positive claims but tend to get a default pass on forums like this.

Certain types of evidence certain religions most certainly do have over certain others. The obviousness of it is why I gave the benefit of the doubt that evidence was being confused with proof.

"Actually you first assumed a limit to knowledge"
Saying they don't have special theological knowledge does not say that they can't possibly have special theological knowledge. It's not a limit; it's just not something people most likely don't have access to. Thus I never assumed a limit to knowledge actually, unlike you. It's like saying: no one has won a lottery twice in a row, and then scored a hole in one. It's possible but it is very likely that it hasn't happened.

"I never said agnosticism makes bold, unprovable claims. "
Yes, that's true, i admit i misread. you said people use agnosticism to make those claims.

"I don't know, so nobody knows"

The logic isn't that I don't know, so therefore no one else does; it's that no evidence has ever arisen that would substantiate the knowledge of someone's supernatural beliefs/claims, and so therefore it's extremely unlikely that nobody else knows.

"Certain types of evidence certain religions most certainly do have over certain others."
Surely this is a bold and unprovable claim. How exactly would you go about showing one religion has more evidence supporting it than another? Specifically i am referring to supernatural claims. And anecdotal evidence from people is just about as valuable as anecdotal evidence from the alien abduction community. Nor does the popularity of a religion support it, just in case you would use that argument.

 

[LuisDantas]

Still, while it appears fictional, there is no proof that a supreme deity (or deities) cannot or does not exist.

That is why the agnostic position is most solid. It does not follow that it is the most reasonable of all, though.

In fact, I think it can often be a wasteful draw of energies.

 

[serp777]

Its not fictional, per say.

Its not something they created in their life times. It is something they lived around and government changed and redefined the concepts at will.




There is no proof whether my yellow plastic squeaky bath ducky did not created the whole universe.

But all plausibility in reality states, there is no chance. Same with ancient men's mythology. There is no chance at all any of it applies to reality.


Scientifically no god of any kind exist at this point in time. WE don't need proof. Those that make the claims however do.

And this covers agnosticism.

"There is no proof whether my yellow plastic squeaky bath ducky did not created the whole universe."

And hence I am agnostic towards this.

"Those that make the claims however do."
yes they have a burden of proof, but saying something does not exist also requires a burden of proof. For example, saying that there is no other place in the universe that has alien life would require proof, even though it's a negation statement.

In science, until we have evidence for one assertion over another, the correct answer is unknown.

 

[serp777]

That is why the agnostic position is most solid. It does not follow that it is the most reasonable of all, though.

In fact, I think it can often be a wasteful draw of energies.

Why is it anymore or less wasteful than any other philosophical position? i think that generally philosophy as a whole could be considered wasteful if you claim that agnosticism is wasteful.

 

[outhouse]

In science, until we have evidence for one assertion over another, the correct answer is unknown.

less the factual mythology as evidence.

We have to much evidence that only man creates deities.


And it does not get around that those making the claim have to back it.

 

[serp777]

less the factual mythology as evidence.

We have to much evidence that only man creates deities.


And it does not get around that those making the claim have to back it.

That is evidence for religion being an inherently flawed, artificial institution, but not evidence that a deity does not exist.