.... The amount of ignorance in your post is embarrassing.50.87% believe? how embarrassing for mankind. Gods in the same league as Santa clause, the tooth fairy, peter pan etc.
Why? He's got a point, and a good one too. Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it..... The amount of ignorance in your post is embarrassing.
Does your logic work in the reverse Kwayera?Why? He's got a point, and a good one too. Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it.
So your idea of an argument is one without substance to back it up like 'Athiests are scum who can't possibly live life to the fullest without a God to give them morals to live by'? See, I too can make an argument without proving myself.Why? He's got a point, and a good one too. Just because you don't like it, doesn't invalidate it.
Hmm, straw man.So your idea of an argument is one without substance to back it up like 'Athiests are scum who can't possibly live life to the fullest without a God to give them morals to live by'? See, I too can make an argument without proving myself.
There is certainly far more feasible reasons that a god could exist. To discount every single argument as the same proof as that of Santa is ignorant, imo.Hmm, straw man.
His point was that God has about as much proof of existence as does Santa Claus/the tooth fairy/etc, that is, none. Belief in a God is just as logical as belief in them, that is, not at all.
It was certainly not an argument without substance, just one that wasn't very well enunciated.
Like what?There is certainly far more feasible reasons that a god could exist. To discount every single argument as the same proof as that of Santa is ignorant, imo.
There are a lot of philosophical questions that still haven't been answered by science, such as what created space, the very first creation of a singular atom, not just in our universe, but in the infinity of space and the sheer 'coincidence' on how perfect planet earth is for life. (Was put at 1/3.8trillion chance for a big bang to create a planet with conditions such as those on earth) Unanswered questions which are seemingly unanswerable naturally lead one to think of other possibilities.Like what?
The Santa Claus myth was at least based on a plausibly real person who did plausibly real things that, as time went on and as happens with legends, gradually gained in supernaturality.
Well it explains why the world is crap, how it came to be, what will happenI'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense, nor does it explain anything. Perfection? Sin? It's all a bit specious.
Oh sure. Of course, the perspective of science is to keep looking, as we'll find the answer anyway. It isn't a coincidence as to why we're here - why? Because we're here. The perspective of you? "Oh, God did it, let's leave it at that." Pathetic.There are a lot of philosophical questions that still haven't been answered by science, such as what created space, the very first creation of a singular atom, not just in our universe, but in the infinity of space and the sheer 'coincidence' on how perfect planet earth is for life. (Was put at 1/3.8trillion chance for a big bang to create a planet with conditions such as those on earth) Unanswered questions which are seemingly unanswerable naturally lead one to think of other possibilities.
No it doesn't, not at all, because it assumes two very stupid things: perfectionism, and sin. That's not an answer to life, that just asks more questions.Well it explains why the world is crap, how it came to be, what will happen
All the answers to life are found in the bible (well some trivial stuff isnt but all we need to know as humans is)
what does not make any sense?
Oh sure. Of course, the perspective of science is to keep looking, as we'll find the answer anyway. It isn't a coincidence as to why we're here - why? Because we're here. The perspective of you? "Oh, God did it, let's leave it at that." Pathetic.
.
It's true, I read statistics somewhere that showed as I.Q goes up, so does the proportionate amount of people who do not believe in a god.I think it comes down to intelligence in the end.
what questions do you mean?Oh sure. Of course, the perspective of science is to keep looking, as we'll find the answer anyway. It isn't a coincidence as to why we're here - why? Because we're here. The perspective of you? "Oh, God did it, let's leave it at that." Pathetic.
No it doesn't, not at all, because it assumes two very stupid things: perfectionism, and sin. That's not an answer to life, that just asks more questions.
Erm, no it's not. It's conceded we may never find an answer, but that doesn't stop scientists from, say, building telescopes to look deeper into the past to maybe one day find out what caused the Big Bang.Actually genius it's been conceded by many scientists that many of these questions are beyond our ability to ever answer.
Is it really? And no, it's not arrogance to believe that science will find an answer, it's inevitability.Just saying 'Ohlolsciencewillfindananswer' is pretty arrogant. Science has its limitations too. I'm saying that in light of this it is ACCEPTABLE to make assumptions either way.
Pretty sure he didn't recognise the "impossibility of an uncreated universe", and even if he did, deist views really have nothing to do with science.Even though Einstein didn't believe in a god, he recognised the impossobility of an uncreated universe. I am not sure either, I am open to all possibilities. I have no idea how you are just so confident about knowing the answer to so many of the greatest philosophical questions facing man,./.
Well, "what is sin? Why have sin? Why rely on this abstract, flawed concept to explain things, when really all it does is begs the question?" for a few.what questions do you mean?