Total posts: 1,740
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
To be clear, you said the "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is greater than all of this (the multiverse], existed before, willl exist after, and is eternal." By this view, "Ultimate reality" and reality are not synonymous.
Now you've changed your story saying the 'ultimate reality is a reality that is most real or true'. Not only is this contradictory to your previous explanation, but it does not answer the question it set to answer, which was:
Without observation, how do you know these things to be true? How could anyone (without observation) know anything about what might or might not of existed before or after existence as we know it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation or postulation.
Hmmm, okay...
Without observation, how do you know these things to be true?The Supreme and Ultimate Reality existed before the universe, is greater than the universe, and will exist long after the universe. If there is even a multiverse, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is greater than all of this, existed before, willl exist after, and is eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
First off, your analogy does not describe what we find. Shaking a hypothetical container of sediment and organisms does not yield rabbits (for example) only in the shallowest layers without fail. This is a significant problem for your explanation.
Secondly, fossilization is rare, but with billions of life forms "rare" is not a problem. Fossils are snap shots of moments in time and, as already mentioned, we know when these fossils lived by many corroborating methods of dating. You would need to show the dating methods significantly flawed before they can be dismissed.
Long story short: the fossil evidence does not match what we would expect to find from a global flood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What is your world-view?
I think it safe to say the answer to this question is a lot more complicated than the question! Short answer: empiricism.
How did the universe come into existence?
I don't know, and I don't think you or anyone else does either.
Is there any purpose to existence?
I dont believe existence has any purpose other than what we give it.
Why do you believe what you believe?
I guess it depends on the belief, but in general, I accept what the evidence shows to true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Nothing I can explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The fossils are not organized by complexity since even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex.
Unless you wish to argue multicellular organisms are less complex than single-celled organisms, we should agree on the fact that less complex fossils will be found in deepest (as well as shallowest) strata while more complex forms (and artifacts such as footprints, burrows, pottery, etc.) are found with increasing frequency as we move from deep to shallow (and not at all in the oldest, deepest layers). Additionally, the diversity of life decreases as we explore older, deeper strata.
How could a flood do this?
What's more problematic is that fossils caused by a global flood would all be the same age and several corroborating types of radiometric dating (as well as ice cores, dendrochronology, etc.) show this not to be the case.
Created:
Posted in:
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
Created:
Atheism is not a neutral position IMO so I would say agnostic if any.
Created:
-->
@linate
atheist means to reject god.
Atheist is one who does not believe in a god. Agnostic is one who has insufficient knowledge to know if a god exists. These terms can overlap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Given the ambiguity and or incoherence of the term "god", the question of the existence of such a being is meaningless.
[...]does an atheist have to dispbelieve in reality because Mopac calls reality a god?
No, of course not! Reality exists. Calling it "ultimate reality" is nothing more than an attempt to build unevidenced things/beings into what is evident and verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This will not be a topic to debate the [...] validity of the bible,
In that case, you should not call this a Bible study.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Floods are not known to organize much less organize by complexity. If you were to find a human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur fossil then a flood could be considered. However, we dont find this. What we find is simpler organisms in lower/older strata and more complex organisms in shallower/younger strata. A flood does not explain this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Let's call it an experiment... ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Created:
Posted in:
I know you are wrong because ...
...of something that is not evidence.
Your beliefs and intuitions may seem compelling to you, but they mean nothing to anyone not inside your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Words: FREE SPEECH!
Actions: You're free to speak (and think) as you like...so long as it doesn't challenge our religious beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Equivocation is not evidence of god(s)...and if it were, why would it be evidence for your god and no one else's?
Created:
Posted in:
It should be noted, blasphemy laws are not exclusive to Islamic countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There is no verifiable evidence of god(s). If there were, then it (and not beliefs of "thousands upon thousands") would be front and center.
If you have verifiable indisputable evidence for god, Id love to see it. Otherwise, your updated form of 'lightning is evidence of Zeus' will be dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I dont claim to know your beliefs cause harm, but if you found they did then the OP is applicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And if none of these sources even existed, it is simply true that there is nothing else that even comes close to being worthy of being called God.
So, your 'evidence' boils down to an argument from incredulity? That's quite an unimpressive (and illogical) argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Reality and truth exist. On this we agree. However you arbitrarily duct tape "God" to these for no discernable reason.
Assertion is not evidence, Mo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If your belief causes no harm to others, then it really makes no difference. However, if it does, then "good enough for me" is no justification.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Your standard of evidence is not consistent.
Created:
Posted in:
...look both ways before crossing? Me too. Making informed decisions based on verifiable indisputable evidence is a strategy that works.
However, when it comes to the subject of god, this standard of evidence cannot be met. If belief were to come without negative consequences (to the individual or society), then this wouldnt be a bad thing. Unfortunately, this all to often is not the case.
That being said, if something is believed true on insufficient evidence* AND this belief causes harm, should not it be tossed away? The alternative is equivalent to crossing the road without the benefit of the senses.
*Belief in god is held on insufficient evidence and often in the face of evidence to the contrary. (Fundamentalism, literalist interpretations, Young Earth Creationism, etc)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Created:
-->
@Kasmic
The observation that we live in a deeply racist, Sexist and homophobic society does not imply that we have made no progress. Nor could it be inferred from such a position that progressivism is a waste of time.
Pinker would agree. Here is the quote in context:
"But it's in the nature of progress that it erases its tracks, and its champions fixate on the remaining injustices and forget how far we have come. An axiom of progressive opinion, Especially in universities, Is that we continue to live in a deeply racist, Sexist, And homophobic society—which would imply that progressivism is a waste of time, Having accomplished nothing after decades of struggle.Like other forms of progressophobia, the denial of advances in rights has been abetted by sensational headlines."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Well, like you said, it's false unless he meant to say they are not respected by him!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If god is not a "who, then you accept god as an "it", yes? If so, do you consider yourself to be a pantheist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Your argument (if it can be called an argument) is pure semantics and equivocation. We already have words for the "Truth" and the "Ultimate Reality" (truth and reality) and your conflation of these with "God" is arbitrary and meaningless.
You'll need something more than a dictionary to establish the existence of gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
"Dragon" and "Pixie" are in the dictionary too, but it takes more than a definition to legitimately suggest (much less validate) the existence of these things or gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
V is asking by what criteria design is determined. Without something "un-designed" to compare suspected designed things to, there can be no legitimate declaration of design ...or a designer. In other words, Paley's watch can only be recognized as designed if the rock it is sitting on is not design.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
God needs no "proof".
If this is true, then what purpose does your solar 'lightbulb' argument (in the context of this thread) serve?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. I was proofing the creation of the sun, not proofing God.
This is blatant dishonesty.
No one has to assume creation. You and I and the ground on which we stand are creation
It's true a painting needs a painter, a building a builder, a creation a creator, etc., but we first need to know said thing is a painting, building, or creation. Show existence in general (or the sun) is a creation, and then (and only then) can talk about the necessity of a creator be legitimate.
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
This is different than what you originally said unless you erroneously hold atheism to be a claim against the existence of god(s).
That being said, you're clarification is accurate and reasonable.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Your logical proofs assume creation and a creator. You're assuming a creator when trying to proof a creator. Its fallacious reasoning.
Created:
Agreed, but you were objecting to a question and not a statement.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
...and, thus, my question.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Raven, as I understand him, appeals to ignorance of the universe as an argument for god and against atheism. I've asked how this is not a fallacy. I've not called him ignorant, and if I had, it would be true, as I'm sure he would acknowledge since he admits the ignorance we all have.
This is hardly arrogance. Arrogance is (among other things) admitting no ignorance - which is not done with sincere questions.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Since when is a sincere question an argument?
Created:
-->
@ravensjt
And although it may seem futile to assign a percentage to the likely hood of a "God-like" being in the Universe (or any "Universe") when considering how vast (endless) the Universe is, the chances seem high enough to me to make the stance of Atheism faulty (imo)
How is this not an argument from ignorance?
Created: