Dr. Dino's Challenge Accepted... again
Unfortunately, my stupid little copy of Acrobat won't let me cut and paste this article. Can someone else do it?
Jeffrick wrote:You need a leap of faith because you can't know anything if the world is an illusion. But since you can't prove rationally that the world is real since your rationality may also be an illusion, you need to make the leap of faith that at least your rationality does work really and is not an illusion.Why would I need a "Leap of Faith" that the world is "Not an illusion"?Jeffrick wrote:After that 'if god created the universe' what is your evidence? And yes "seeing the world has [natural] order and that free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind is TRUE!!!!!!!!!! How can you call yourself a theist with such things springing forth from your fingertips?
I don't understand this part of your reasoning. I may just comment before you instruct me on this that as a theist, I don't have limitation. The world could have been made randomly or by spontaneity and God could still have caused those thing. God could exist even if his existence could be completely non-apparent.
................ What kind of medications does your psychiatrist have you on, and why aren't you takeing them?
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.
Facts are not facts if not by a statement of faith that the world is real.
We don't need to prove God can't create the universe.
You need to prove it in order to tell God believers that they are naive and irrational. If not, they are no more naive than you are.
We can show in trivial ways that order definitely does not require a God, a mind.
You can't show though that order can't permit the existence of God.
Free will is a misconception - the perception of having free will exists, but in no way establishes that any choices are not ultimately determined by the immediately preceding state of your mind and the environment.
There's no point in trying to convince anyone then. We're just executing the processes were determined to do and no one is brighter than anyone to believe this or this. Why try to convince believers then. There is nothing brighter in the belief that you've been determined to believe in.
It has been shown that a Universe originating from non-supernatural causes is definitely possible, so it is NOT necessary to show that the universe cannot be made by a supernatural mind, merely that we have better explanations, that are more consistent with the actual evidence, such as it is.
I don't think you've better evidences. And since the belief in God or in any other cause doesn't change anything in our life either by making us richer or more intelligent, then there is no proof why I should care about what you think are better evidences.
Because you equate your faith with knowledge while lacking evidence to support it.
You equaly have no evidence of the contrary.jcgadfly wrote:You claim that you know a mind created the universe because you believe it. However, you can't articulate any basis for your belief than "It makes me feel good"
It's not the case, but if it was, what would be wrong with it. If there are no evidence of anything that may give a purpose to life, that doesn't prove it would be bad that I live in that illusion. Don't you like living in the illusion that God doesn't exist?jcgadfly wrote:How about this instead - instead of imagining another God, why don't we put our time and energy toward making society better for the people who are actually here? Have you thought about that or are you too heavenly minded to be of earthly good?
There's nothing contrary here. Christianism for example, if you read the Gospel, is all about making society better. Examples such as Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Brother André (he has just been canonized) are very good examples of people making society better. This, we've never seen such things among atheists.jcgadfly wrote:No, an atheist is a person who holds no belief in gods period. It is a standard of belief. Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge and is as you claim. Belief and knowledge are not the same things. If you have knowledge of something, you don't need a belief in that something as well. Do you know 2+2=4 or do you just believe it but haven't proved it yet?
You need to explain what is the difference then between someone that have never heard about God, therefore holding no belief in a God and an atheist which is more like a person which has heard about God, but hold a belief in a non-God cause for the Universe. There is a difference between both which you don't seem to see.jcgadfly wrote:Faith may be irrational. However, the definition I used included a need for evidence. I notice you bypassed that one to crush the straw man you built. congrats.
Faith is not irrational it is the basis on which you build every reasoning. Every premises, assumptions in a deduction are statements of faith. You always need a statement of faith to make any reasoning. To have no statement of faith (no premises) render impossible reasoning. Therefore, reasoning without faith is irrational. Your need for evidences need to prove, if faith is irrational, that these evidences are really evidences. Why shouldn't they be illusion of reality. What evidence is there that your reason, the process by which you comprehend evidences really works?
1. Yes, and I don't claim to have knowledge that a god doesn't exist. I do have evidence (given to me by the writers of the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah - thanks guys) that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. You claim that you know the God of the Bible solely because you have faith (despite the evidence that science and observation gives you).
2. Don't know the other two but saying that Mother Teresa made society better by gathering up people to die in one place while traveling the world collecting money to not help these people is a large stretch. Read Hitchens' information about her. You don't see atheists' doing good for society because there are fewer attention whores in the atheistic ranks.
3. Simple - The person who has never heard about God hasn't heard the BS that theists pass of as knowledge of God. The atheist has heard it and realizes that it's BS. There is no belief in a non-God just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. I see the difference quite well - you're the one with vision problems.
4. You don't know the difference between a premise and an assumption? This explains much.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin