VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Science does not adress metaphysics at all, so you are as usual in error.
Upvote
0
Why God allows evil
- Thread starter Unofficial Reverand Alex
- Start date
Science does not adress metaphysics at all, so you are as usual in error.
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Since you replied about my challenge...
Atheists believe there is no god... no "metaphysics" if you will.
So, my challenge them is to explain those four points of "belief" (that I have been falsely accused of stating as a "straw man") and give a reasonable scientific explanation of those issues... without invoking anything "metaphysical."
Obviously... they've been completely incapable of doing so. All I've heard is whining about why they don't have to.
Upvote
0
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
Right. So if P'W is not evidence of the proposition, then it's equally valid for any belief system. The question then becomes which belief system would P'W apply to? This is problem #1.
If Allah is, then you lose everything if you ignore him. Or Cthulhu is then you lose everything... Hopefully the problem is beginning to dawn on you.
Only if your faith and investment in religion is little.
The biggest problem with P'W IMO, is that an omniscient being would know if the only reason for belief was to avoid hell. Additionally, I don't believe you can choose your beliefs.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Atheism does not require rejecting metaphysics, just god(s).
You are in error yet again.
Your stupid questions are just that, stupid as you try to mix metaphysics with physics. Thats bad science and even worse theology.
Upvote
0
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I never said it addresses the metaphysical.
I said that science suggests that it exists. To "address," you need to describe and quantify.
To reiterate... the first law of thermodynamics states that no matter/energy can be created or destroyed in a closed system (the universe). Since the universe is, then it must have always been... unless acted upon by a force outside the closed system. The second law states that everything must reach equilibrium... which we don't yet have in this closed system. Therefore, it must have had a beginning... unless it has been acted upon by an outside force.
Remove the possibility of an outside force (the metaphysical), then these two laws are in directly and irreconcilable conflict.
This suggests an outside force must be in play. An external force (the metaphysical) is inferred by the data. That's the correct scientific conclusion.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Err, no, your statement regarding the universe is unknown. We dont know if its a closed or open system. We do know how long it has existed however. It is not eternal.
Law are btw a term not really used in science anymore.
And no, science does not suggest metaphysics exist. It does not adress metaphysics at all. You really really need a philosophy 101, theology 101 and science 101 because you understand very little in all three fields.
Upvote
0
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You're just whining because you have no plausible scientific answer.
And you're playing word games.
Atheists can believe in "metaphysics" but not "God"? How stupid is that assertion?
Whatever force there is in the metaphysical realm actually IS the core definition of what God is. Note, I'm not trying to prove the Christian God... or any other particular representation of God... I'm just demonstrating than the naturalistic world view is at odds with science itself... while deism (metaphysicalism, if you will) is not.
So... I'll let you rework the questions... Tell me a reasonable understanding of those four issues I raised that is both scientifically consistent and uses whatever "metaphysical" force you want... and try to demonstrate that the position is not one of "faith" or belief in things you can't see, measure, or prove.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
No I’m not playing wordgames.
I cant help your poor quality posts where you know very little about the subject(s).
Also - I’m not responsible for your education.
Upvote
0
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Indeed... so much we don't know... yet atheistic scientists have no problem declaring that there's no need to believe in a God at all. It's dishonest and unscientific to assert.
Interesting... they're not "laws" because in cases like I mentioned, they are literally in conflict with one another, right? Can't both be true all the time... in a naturalistic world view. But we can still treat them as "laws" in all of our calculations...
More whining and word games.
Just address the 4 points.
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
.... you just run around in circles and keep asserting things you dont undrrstand or have data to support.
Entertaining but of no value.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
My poor quality posts?
I've made a lot of scientific assertions... which ones have been in error?
How many scientific assertions has anyone else made in defense of their atheism? Pretty scarce... and weak at that.
It seems that my knowledge is a lot more complete than anyone who's responded to me. Show me where I have been wrong scientifically.
All I'm hearing from you and just about anyone else is "YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG" but nobody is able to tell me precisely where an how I'm wrong... including you.
Funny how those who declare "reason" to be their guide have been the only ones incapable of providing any solid reason in this discussion.
Upvote
0
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to claim science and reason as a means of discovering truth and to not yet discovered a god and thus they declare "they don't believe."
Upvote
0
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Just address the four points and demonstrate for all to see and read that you are SO much better informed and SO much better intellectually and SO much wiser than I am.
Just one post and it will be SO clear...
But you can't... or you won't... because you are just blowing smoke.
Put up or shut up.
Upvote
0
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
No... the logical thing to say is "I don't know" anytime something is unknown or even unknowable.
But that's agnosticism...
Atheism claims that there IS no God... THAT is what I'm saying is unreasonable.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Classic.
Translation:
I'm right. You're wrong. I don't have to prove it to you or anyone else.
You can't point to a single thing that I've said that is scientifically in error. Yet you feel justified to post this sort of thing?
Put up or shut up.
Upvote
0
MyChainsAreGone
Image Bearer
- Apr 18, 2009
- 690
- 510
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
Telling someone what they believe is a straw man.
Look, I'll be honest with you here, you come across as a young kid who maybe just fell upon an apologetics site and is amped up on what you've learned, and your insistence of telling us what we believe, actually undermines your position. If you're really interested in an honest discussion, you should start by asking a question. For example, you might ask, what do you mean when you say you're an atheist. Seriously, anyone looking in on this thread can see you're having a great time arguing with yourself.
If you truly want to learn something about another point of view, then pipe down, ask a question, and see where the conversation goes, you just might be surprised.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
No I wont adress your four stupid ”points” as they are inherintly dishonest.
If you took my advice on education you would understand why.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Atheism is about belief. If I say I don't believe in gods, I'm not declaring that there are no gods.
[A]gnosticism is about knowledge. A soft agnostic might say "I don't know"; a hard agnostic might declare that something is unknowable.
Thus, I can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. You'll find that most atheists identify as the former. That is, we don't declare that no gods exist--only that we don't believe in their existence.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
