Quote from killthesunshine:
believers are factless, therefore they believe? they believe because the facts are less(factless) therefore they believe
No facts exist that say the believers have it wrong.
Religion is a hypothesis.
- Thread starter walter4
- Start date
No facts exist that say the believers have it wrong.
That's why I don't get how these arguments go on for so long.
There is no scientifically defined evidence to support a God hypothesis. Theist believers must rely on faith.
There is no scientifically defined evidence to preclude the possibility that some evidence to support a God hypothesis may be found some day. Atheist believers must rely on faith.
The proper stance is either faith, or agnosticism (the stance of the pure scientist).
No facts exist that believers have it right.. according to you i quote:
"Believers will admit that their belief is based on faith"
You just admitted to no facts for your position. (oh, ps i hope this isn't the way you approach your trading
so, if any facts shall arise to support athiest position, you might change your mind
Your second premise is flawed by the exclusion of certain possibilities you otherwise allow. . It would necessitate the atheist and the theist and the "agnostic" believe in toothfairies too, as they may be found some day.
Not all theists have belief in toothfairies so no belief or faith is required in that regard.
In my experience only those who call themselves "agnostic" would generally believe toothfairies may exist
The proper stance I would say is, no reason to believe, leaves an atheist and a theist (and pure science) simply without belief .
Quote from stu:
Your second premise is flawed by the exclusion of certain possibilities you otherwise allow. . It would necessitate the atheist and the theist and the "agnostic" believe in toothfairies too, as they may be found some day.
Not all theists have belief in toothfairies so no belief or faith is required in that regard.
In my experience only those who call themselves "agnostic" would generally believe toothfairies may exist
The proper stance I would say is, no reason to believe, leaves an atheist and a theist and pure science simply without belief .
I don't follow that. My second premise (though I'm not really intending a syllogism here) allows for new evidence to arise. Could be for anything.
Good post
lets get serious..
how do you negate the possibility of omnipotence? what fact could disprove it? what observance can you give to prove omnipotence?
Ricter, you're one of the few thinking theists in ET.
As stu pointed out, your second paragraph requires that we consider everything as possible because someday evidence may be found supporting it. I don't think that is a practical way to live.
I like the following:
"The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.[...] A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence." (Irving Copi 1953)
In other words, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, but depending on the study in question, absence of evidence can reasonably be regarded as evidence of absence.
I've said elsewhere that I cannot disprove the existence of unicorns on Neptune, but it is reasonable to conclude that no unicorns are roaming the earth, given the absence of evidence that they are.
Of course an omnipotent god would have no trouble concealing itself from humanity, but if that is the case, why are so many theists convinced that it is involved in their lives and futures?