Why don't Theist's admit that there's no evidence for God?

[Enai de a lukal]

I have the same grounds that you do to question anyone else's position.

No, I guess you forgot about this part-

As someone whose own position is admittedly irrational and intellectually irresponsible

Thus the wisdom about throwing stones from glass houses...

 

[Sleeppy]

This "original" is nothing more than a Yawning Gap, according to our songs. It's not a sentient being. Our songs don't say how Muspelheim(Fireland) and Niflheim(Iceland - the realm, not the country) first formed, if they were ever nonexistent to begin with.

My own meditations have taught me that if there was an original being who is somewhat sentient, that original being is none other than Hel; the Ice Queen; Death.

Scientists do it all the time. It's their job.

They, themselves, aren't necessarily the storehouse of the obtained knowledge. Books, disks, documents, etc. are.

I'm not sure what you identify sentience as being.. Could you clarify?

How do you think they obtained the credentials to be called scientists? They need to know certain things. Otherwise, you'd call theory spontaneous, which it isn't.

 

[Philomath]

No, I guess you forgot about this part-



Thus the wisdom about throwing stones from glass houses...

So because I admit that my belief in God is irrational because there is no evidence for him, I can't question anyone else's thinking?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So because I admit that my belief in God is irrational because there is no evidence for him, I can't question anyone else's thinking?

Its not obvious what basis you would have to do so- you certainly couldn't allege that their beliefs were irrational or not intellectually tenable...

 

[Philomath]

Its not obvious what basis you would have to do so- you certainly couldn't allege that their beliefs were irrational or not intellectually tenable...

I've admitted to the irrationality of that belief. I would question their beliefs on the same basis as I question my own which is whether or not they have evidence for them.

 

[Sha'irullah]

In all honesty I know I will sound like a religious idiot saying this but I know there is a God or else a book like the Qur'an would not make me become a hypocrite and eat my words.....multiple times.

Every time I say "I am done with this thing" I come back to it begging like a child without milk. Whether it be Divinely Revealed or Divinely Inspired

THe ability mankind has to do anything is proof enough of a god and the ability for anything to do anything is proof enough. The very existence of a law is proof enough. Everything is set and predetermined. I have all that I need to know there is a god.


...........*preparing for backlash*

 

[Philomath]

In all honesty I know I will sound like a religious idiot saying this but I know there is a God or else a book like the Qur'an would not make me become a hypocrite and eat my words.....multiple times.

Every time I say "I am done with this thing" I come back to it begging like a child without milk. Whether it be Divinely Revealed or Divinely Inspired

THe ability mankind has to do anything is proof enough of a god and the ability for anything to do anything is proof enough. The very existence of a law is proof enough. Everything is set and predetermined. I have all that I need to know there is a god.


...........*preparing for backlash*

*Writes giant post refuting you* lol

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not sure what you identify sentience as being.. Could you clarify?

...now I need clarification on what you're asking me to clarify, since I'm afraid I can't decipher the grammar of your question.

How do you think they obtained the credentials to be called scientists? They need to know certain things. Otherwise, you'd call theory spontaneous, which it isn't.

And think ye that they were born with that knowledge?

Besides, science is made up of fields. A biologist isn't necessarily going to know one rock from another, nor is a botanist necessarily going to be able to catch when a planet is moving in front of a distant star.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'll admit I don't have enough evidence to convince anyone else of anything of or pertaining to metaphysical or supernatural things. But then again, who really cares what the rest of you believe?

(I do actually... a lot)

 

[Riverwolf]

Everything is set and predetermined.

Except that it kind of isn't.

 

[McBell]

Well, it would be better you didn't. You lack the confidence for good reason. Evidenced by your uneducated remark. Educate yourself. Read some of what you missed and who said what. And why.

Then come back and say something educated.

yo Bruno..

whoosh!
​

 

[Sleeppy]

...now I need clarification on what you're asking me to clarify, since I'm afraid I can't decipher the grammar of your question.

And think ye that they were born with that knowledge?

Besides, science is made up of fields. A biologist isn't necessarily going to know one rock from another, nor is a botanist necessarily going to be able to catch when a planet is moving in front of a distant star.

What qualifies as a sentient being? That's my question.

The ability to obtain knowledge is a result of contained knowledge. You don't put a baby into the 12th grade, hoping it'll learn things that were covered in previous grades. Are babies born with knowledge? Of course. They know all about a nipple. But almost nothing about writing an essay.

 

[Riverwolf]

What qualifies as a sentient being? That's my question.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

And here's where we run into a wall; the exact qualification for sentience is up for debate. However, sentience can absolutely be observed in humans, but absolutely cannot be observed in rocks, or even in trees (which are still living things.)

So even living things aren't necessarily sentient.

However, it's a blurry line that hasn't yet been agreed upon.

The ability to obtain knowledge is a result of contained knowledge. You don't put a baby into the 12th grade, hoping it'll learn things that were covered in previous grades. Are babies born with knowledge? Of course. They know all about a nipple. But almost nothing about writing an essay.

Instinctual behaviors don't necessarily indicate knowledge.

Nevertheless, my point still remains: science is first and foremost a method by which knowledge is obtained. Besides, the knowledge obtained in school is secondhand knowledge; science obtains firsthand knowledge.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Except that it kind of isn't.

So you are saying the laws of physics can cease? Please tell me when this has happened

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

So you are saying the laws of physics can cease? Please tell me when this has happened

The laws of physics aren't everything. Winning the lottery or a poker game have nothing to do with physics, and generally aren't thought of as pre-determined events.

 

[Sleeppy]

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

And here's where we run into a wall; the exact qualification for sentience is up for debate. However, sentience can absolutely be observed in humans, but absolutely cannot be observed in rocks, or even in trees (which are still living things.)

So even living things aren't necessarily sentient.

However, it's a blurry line that hasn't yet been agreed upon.



Instinctual behaviors don't necessarily indicate knowledge.

Nevertheless, my point still remains: science is first and foremost a method by which knowledge is obtained. Besides, the knowledge obtained in school is secondhand knowledge; science obtains firsthand knowledge.

It's a blurry line, yet we've already placed things around it? What's the point in having a word with a blurry definition?

It honestly looks to me like you would argue anything, as long as it was opposed to whatever I say, so I'll leave you be. I agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Riverwolf]

So you are saying the laws of physics can cease? Please tell me when this has happened

Are you aware of Chaos Theory?

 

[Riverwolf]

It's a blurry line, yet we've already placed things around it? What's the point in having a word with a blurry definition?

Don't ask me. Scientists come up with blurry and indefinite terms for things all the time.

A few others are species and life.

It bugs me, too, since it makes some of my meditations harder.

It honestly looks to me like you would argue anything, as long as it was opposed to whatever I say, so I'll leave you be.

Sorry you feel that way, but it's not the case. When I disagree on something, it's simply because I disagree.

I agree to disagree and move on.

Very well.

 

[Sleeppy]

The laws of physics aren't everything. Winning the lottery or a poker game have nothing to do with physics, and generally aren't thought of as pre-determined events.

If there is no lottery, no ticket.. What happens? Nobody wins it. Correct? Everything has a former condition. Everything has conditions for its existence.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If there is no lottery, no ticket.. What happens? Nobody wins it. Correct? Everything has a former condition. Everything has conditions for its existence.

That existence of the ticket doesn't make the winner pre-determined... Nobody knows which ticket is the winner until the winning numbers are selected AT RANDOM. It's not like there are people in the Powerball office going "I think Bob from Milwaukee deserves to win this time".