RE: Subsequent truths
November 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm
(This post was last modified: November 20, 2011 at 1:50 pm by Norfolk And Chance.)
(November 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm)chadster1976 Wrote: With no evidence, surely it is more like Schrodinger's cat? He both exists and doesn't exist at the same time...
I respect your atheist opinion and if I ever feel I have evidence contrary to it, I will publish it in a peer reviewed paper! I assume you would do the same. Until then we can both hold our beliefs, just as the cat is both dead and alive.
I don't have any beliefs.
You do.
There is your critical difference right there.
A theist can never try and lump the two viewpoints together in a box marked "equally as valid as one another" as you have tried to now do several times because one is a belief and the other one isn't.
My view "I do not believe there is a god because there is no evidence" IS completely logical AND valid.
Your view "I believe in god even though there is no evidence" ISN'T valid. Sure you can hold that belief, but it'll never be valid until you can back it up.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
