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.
The fact that people can believe in non-existent deities is true. Therefore, belief alone is not evidence that a deity really exists.
The end.What is coming?
How can you have a black holes without a singularity? Again the scientist do admit that black holes break the known laws of physics. That's why many at first didn't believe in their existence. They are those who still doesn't they exist.Scientists don't make that claim about black holes; they make it about the singularity.
Heliocentric was not accepted because of the evidence at first but simply it made the math easier.How did we determine that Geocentrism was wrong? By using evidence?
An alleged "awareness" that you cannot present in a falsifiable manner.
God is omnipresent, and not only does he effect anything, he is overseer. But what I was referring to is not his limitation, but the limitation of this universe. It's close-circuit, so, no, we can't go outside to demonstrate how it fits into the greater scheme of things.
The problem with claiming that our assertions are empty, is a limitation adherent to your position: You are unwilling to go outside the space, time, matter realm to consider anything beyond, and you insist on evidence that is simply not attainable there. "I don't want to go, and I don't want to know...so you must be delusional!" ...Yeah right.
Yes, I have. I considered them and found them all to be unverifiable and untrustworthy. When your evidence for something is indistinguishable for that something not existing, then you have a serious problem. This is the problem that Sagan covered in his essay on Dragon's that live in garages.
"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
So what is the difference between an invisible and completely undetectable deity and one that doesn't exist?
Heliocentric was not accepted because of the evidence at first but simply it made the math easier.
Note that aliens are the result of man looking into the heavens knowing there is life out there.Very true people have reported mysterious feelings of many kinds. People report being abducted by aliens too. That doesn't make aliens more or less likely to be true. It just means people have feelings they can't explain. There are many potential explanations.
What alternative cosmologies should they be teaching in ethics classes?
No, that would be the anti-christ.If I put a high school kid in a sweaty god suit, is that who God is?
As far as I know it's not as it was shown to be incorrect.
The end.
This universe was created for a finite purpose, most of which has been fulfilled.
Indeed, where you tried to conflate the human brain's ability to recognize patterns and the development of artificial pattern recognition.
General relativity
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?