RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 11, 2015 at 1:25 am
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 1:27 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 1: How has the God hypothesis failed? If you could show this, you would actually have proof of atheism, which far as i can tell, no atheist in any debate has ever come up with.
Firstly, it fails because it doesn't explain how imperfection can come from perfection.
Secondly, you're committing the excluded--middle fallacy. Disproving your god doesn't prove atheism, it only disproves your god.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 2: Like what?
Like Zeus, who obviously doesn't live on Mt Olympus. Like Thor, who obviously isn't bowling on the clouds over our heads. Like Vishnu, who doesn't actually preserve the Universe.
Like the god of the Bible, who obviously is not perfect, nor omnipotent.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 3: No because you have no grounds to liken God to Unicorns. Why would you posit unicorns as an explanation for any phenomena? Their postulation is entirely arbitrary, thats why you can dismiss the claim. God is different, he could be the explicator for all phenomena, and i'd argue, is the best explicator.
Not at all. Your god's existence doesn't explain evil. Your god's existence doesn't explain quasars. Your god's existence doesn't explain leukemia.
The only thing your god's existence in your head explains iswhy you're wrong -- to wit, because you have decided that blind faith is the life for you.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 4: Like what? We can argue about evolution or dating methods if you like, or we can argue about whether or not things should be taken allegorically, literally, metaphorically etc.
We could get simpler than that. I can prove that you worship an evil god.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 5: To be disproven is an absolute. You never need to disprove something more than once. As far as i can tell, certainly science has never disproven God.
You're making a logical error here.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 6: Like When?
Like when your Bible claimed that your god was good, yet also claimed he invented evil.
Yeah, like that when. Thanks for asking.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 7:Demonstrate why you cannot believe in God and science, in mind of the fact that science is the study of the natural realm, which exists inside of our universe, and God, being the creator of the universe, exists independent of it.
Because, science demands the ability to questions one's premises, while faith demands the unquestioning acceptance of dogma.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 8: Like when?
See the answer to 6) above.
(February 10, 2015 at 10:29 pm)YGninja Wrote: 9: Like when? Lol, i think you have a case of scientism. Science operated in the natural paradigm, God created the natural paradigm, he exists outside of it. You cannot disprove God through naturalism. the best explanation for naturalism, is God.
Claiming that your god created the paradigm, a word I doubt you really understand, is not demonstrating the same thing.
If your god interacts with the material world, he must by definition leave evidence. If he doesn't, he is either nonexistent, or irrelevant. Or both.
You obviously don't know much about the topic of the thread, so you spew instead the object of your faith. No one here cares. This discussion is about why agnosticism is meaningful. Do you have any thoughts on that, or have you masters forgotten to program you for this contingency?
Begone, robot.
