Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, you were so close too....
P1 - if any claim of a god existing were true, the claimant should be able to provide evidence.
P2 - no claimant has produced any evidence.
Therefore, belief in the claim is withheld...
Kylie;
Lack of evidence?
Some have argues that a "spiritual" or "religious" aspect to the universe is axiomatic, or the default position, and that atheists live in psychological denial.
As a Mulsim I use indicative signs also. Like, secularists on a binge drink having a great time, in some respect falsifies secularism.
Teen Muslims, not out to cause trouble, or make it to gangsta status etc, can serve as evidence for Islam.
After all if God transcends the universe, then such signs are all we can have.
"Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth." Koran.
That would at best be an argument for agnosticism
Ah..now you need a lesson in agnosticism vs atheism.
A-gnostic means ‘without knowledge’.
A-theism means ‘without god belief’.
The two are independent concepts.
I am an agnostic atheist. I have no knowledge of the existence of god/s, nor do I have a belief in them.
A so-called ‘strong atheist’ might be a gnostic atheist; ie, he has no belief in gods because he knows they don’t exist...
And the same dichotomy exists for theists...
agnostic
NOUN
Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?
- A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Reality isn't an argument, it's just ya know ... reality.41 pages can be summed up in one answer. No.
Atheists just try to fall back on "oh we dont need a reason, atheism is the default." It's a poor argument.
The truth is, there is scant evidence that atheism is true. There are some arguments, such as the Problem of Evil, which are the best atheists have, but in my opinion these have been refuted adequately by Christian philosophers.
That would at best be an argument for agnosticism
People are calling it by the words that define it. You are mashing things together.agnostic
NOUN
Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?
- A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Which God is this in reference to? Because I know of some Rastafarians who call Halle Selassie God and before he died in the 1970's there is absolutely proof that he existed. Would an agnostic claim his existence can't be known just because some people chose to call him God?agnostic
NOUN
Call it what you want, where is the evidence or arguments that God doesn't exist?
- A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Firstly, of course people can grow to believe in God without instruction, otherwise religion would never have arisen. We are all born agnostic. We don't know whether God exists or not.
Secondly, this is one of the best defense Ive seen if you're genuinely interested
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../existence-nature-of-god/the-problem-of-evil/
Kylie;
Lack of evidence?
Some have argues that a "spiritual" or "religious" aspect to the universe is axiomatic, or the default position, and that atheists live in psychological denial.
As a Mulsim I use indicative signs also. Like, secularists on a binge drink having a great time, in some respect falsifies secularism.
Teen Muslims, not out to cause trouble, or make it to gangsta status etc, can serve as evidence for Islam.
After all if God transcends the universe, then such signs are all we can have.
"Travel through the earth and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth." Koran.
Let's say there was something that wiped out all of humanity's knowledge, and we all became basically cavemen again. All science was lost, all literature was lost, all religion was lost.
Would we get science again? Yes. Would we get religion again? Again, yes.
But here's the difference.
Sooner or later, someone would come up with e=mc^2 again. But no one would ever come up with Christianity again.
Now you've changed from "no evidence" to no "rational evidence". I was simply pointing out there are different empricisms to the atheistic one, on which to ground your beliefs about religion. Call them irrational if you like, whatever that's meant to mean in this context I don't know.So? I know people disagree with me. But simply pointing out that people who disagree exist is not an argument against my point. There is no rational evidence to support the existence of God.
Your claim here relies on your assumption that Christianity is not true. If Christianity were true, then (fairly obviously) God would have the loss of knowledge as part of His plan and Christianity would arise from the ashes due to His interference.
Interestingly, I also don't think your claim that E=Mc^2 would be "reinvented" again is necessarily true. While Einstein's GR is a great theory (and I mean "theory" in the scientific sense here) I am not convinced it is unique. Quite often in science we are seeing dualities between various theories that show that completely different models can provide the same predictions. (In fact, quite of a lot of these dualities involve gravity, such as the Maldecena conjecture.) I suspect if we started from scratch again, by the time we got back to our current technological level, we would have rather different looking theories of the universe just as powerful as our current ones. (If we could do this without actually losing our current theories, this would provide great insight. Maybe we could bury them in a time-capsule, destroy civilisation and dig them up again 30,000 years from now. But maybe that is a little extreme...)
On the fine-tuning argument, while I agree that the existence of fine-tuning is not evidence of God, the lack of an explanation of fine-tuning is evidence against scientific models of for the creation of the universe (such as the Big Bang model or the Standard Model of particle physics). These theories, in essence, are making wrong predictions about the universe, e.g. the cosmological constant. Having said that of course, both these models contain very useful insights into the natural world and make many correct predictions, so I am confident that modifications of them will eventually explain the fine-tunings, but we are certainly not there yet.
Now you've changed from "no evidence" to no "rational evidence". I was simply pointing out there are different empricisms to the atheistic one, on which to ground your beliefs about religion. Call them irrational if you like, whatever that's meant to mean in this context I don't know.
If Christianity IS true, then I completely agree that what you say is correct. God, desiring worship, would make sure Christianity is spread again.
But really, I don't see that happening. There sheer number of different religions today points to that. And the huge number of different sects of Christianity alone is even stronger evidence. How could there be so many different variations of the One True Religion (tm)?
I don't see how this is possible. Science is the study of the objective facts about our universe. Unless the laws of the universe change, what we discover about those laws would remain the same as what we know today.
Doesn't the idea of multiverses explain the apparent fine tuning? Every single possible universe is formed, and naturally we would only exist in the universes where the laws were suitable for us to appear. So naturally, we should not be surprised when we find that we are in a universe that is capable of supporting life.
Evidence of what? You'll have to give an argument as to why having different religions somehow disprove them all. It doesn't seem to follow.
The multiverse has many problems. Firstly there is no evidence of it. Secondly, it is still highly unlikely that we would be in a fine tuned universe. Having a small patch of order in a non-finely tuned universe is a lot more probable. And there is the Boltzmann brain problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?