Belief in God and Market Perspective

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from jem:

Stu -

They simply can not prove there is no creator.


My argument does not require anyone to prove a negative...

It's not with science or atheists - I think you’ll find the problem you say others are having is actually your own...

There is nothing basically intellectually respectable, rational, logical in your argument above.
 
Quote from jem:

No scientist has the tools or knowledge to state what caused the big bang. Therefore to be an atheist requires faith in there being no God.

That is not asking you to prove a negative. it is a fact.
Sorry jem, it is not a fact.
Without the information an atheist has no reason to believe there is a God. That is an unambiguous -no reason to believe - point of view, not a requirement for belief or faith. Its a requirement for knowledge.
 
Quote from jem:

Stu -

My argument does not require anyone to prove a negative... it soley requires a scientific understanding.


We already know. Scientists have no ability to tell you what went on for the first moments after the big bang. I think you actually corrected me once and stated the time preriod is measured in yachto seconds not billionths. But top physicists are in accord. We can't measure things for a split second after the big bang. the physical as we know them did not exist at first...

Top physicists routinely say they can not tell us if there was a creator or not. This man are rational. No scientist has the tools or knowledge to state what caused the big bang. Therefore to be an atheist requires faith in there being no God.


That is not asking you to prove a negative. it is a fact.

it would be rational to say that based on your review of science you see no evidence of God.

that is an agnostic position and it is a rational position hold. I am not endorsing it as my position but I am saying that it is rational and in my book intellectually respectable.

----

As far as scientists who state there is evidence of a design. I have already given you quotes from a handful of top scientists on our other threads.

I will not bother searching for them unless you deny this fact.

If you do - it will prove how irrational you are.


In other words; if the CAUSE of an event, (such as the Big Bang), is not known, then you or anybody else gets to put forth their belief and it then becomes incumbent on non-believers to disprove these beliefs!?!?!??!

If this is what you are saying then:

- if you are a Christian then I challenge you to disprove that 4 billion non-Christians are wrong.

- if you are a Muslim then I challenge you to prove that 4.35 billion non-Muslim people are wrong.

- if you are Hindu then I challenge you to prove that 5.0 billion non-Hindu people are wrong

In short, stating a belief does NOT establish it as a fact. You do not not get to assert a belief as a fact just to 'fill in' gaps for knowledge that we do not know. Learn how to say/accept: "I don't know the answer to that question". It's O.K. to not know.
 
Quote from stu:

Sorry jem, it is not a fact.
Without the information an atheist has no reason to believe there is a God. That is an unambiguous -no reason to believe - point of view, not a requirement for belief or faith. Its a requirement for knowledge.

Could we say, then, that if there were Truth before the big bang, the boom blew it "to kingdom come"? How would we know?

Jesus
 
Quote from SWhiting:

In other words; if the CAUSE of an event, (such as the Big Bang), is not known, then you or anybody else gets to put forth their belief and it then becomes incumbent on non-believers to disprove these beliefs!?!?!??!


What if the cause of the big bang(s) was a...belief!

After all, it is not "known".
What is not known is a belief, yes?

So, what if the big bang puts forth a belief? Are we supposed to believe it? Could we say that it is incumbent on those who do not believe in the effects of the big bang to disprove it's reality? What if a non-believer were to, say, rise from the dead? What then?

Jesus
 
no sw and Stu - you are changing the burden of proof.... and it is illogical to do so.

Sw and Stu you state there is no God. How do you know? how can you prove it.

Lets go back a few years.

Would a rational scientist declare there is no life on other planets?

Or would a rational scientist say there is no evidence of life on other planets.

---

Stu you are so blind to the facts you will not even admit on other threads I have given you quotes from top scientists which say that there is evidence of design.

Please do a search and then come back here and deny it.
 
Quote from jem:
They simply can not prove there is no creator.

My argument does not require anyone to prove a negative...

Sw and Stu you state there is no God. How do you know? how can you prove it.
You must be kidding right? Your argument "does not require anyone to prove a negative".!??
No way .Your rationality can't be that far gone, surely!? sheesh.

Just in case , see if this might help ...
"They simply can not prove there is no creator.? "
Yes I can jem. I can prove to you there is no creator.
I can prove categorically, without doubt, without question, there is no creator.

Now, ... you prove I cannot.
Fair enough. It's what you are doing. Asking others to prove a negative.
So go on. I have proof there is no Creator. Prove I don't. Prove the negative.

...or is it that the onus, the burden of proof, is on me ? I make the assertion therefore I provide the proof. I do not require others to prove the opposite of my assertion or in other words, prove the negative.

So when you say "They simply cannot prove there is no creator ", you are asking for the contrary of your argument (that there is a creator) to be proved. That is asking to prove the negative.
I must say in regard to the topic of this thread, it is hard to see how Market Perspective can be in any way improved by a belief in God mentality. Especially one which denies what it is actually doing and at the same time contradicts straightforward understanding in a way that does not allow a sensible and reasonable approach to reasoning. I mention no names.
jem!!
 
Quote from jem:

Would a rational scientist declare there is no life on other planets?

Only if the entire universe had been searched, however the sensory system cannot be trusted, data may or may not real. Scientists will always be slaves to data manipulation. Maybe its done by god, it could be done by humans, aliens is another possibility. Luck is often the deciding factor, if ur lucky u believe in god, if not everything is a conspiracy.
 
Quote from jem:

Or would a rational scientist say there is no evidence of life on other planets.
Would a rational argument present itself as a sham question set up to be easily refuted thereby suggesting something else is true?
God obviously is nothing but a strawman.
 
Quote from EdgeHunter:

Join every one and let HIM sort it out... :eek:
Nope, that won't do, even if you are a wizard multi-tasker. Some of these religions send you straight to hell for worshipping false gods. So I don't think their particular god will look upon his having to share the limelight too kindly. Therefore, hedging is not a viable strategy. You will have to take an outright position and then...pray. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top