Objecting the concept of a Deity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2012, 10:55 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity
(21-12-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  How is no disproof less an argument than no proof?
It would be an argument from ignorance to say that because X hasn't been proven to be wrong (yet), it is therefore true and vice versa. My lack of belief in supernatural deities is founded on the lack of evidence for their existence.

It is not ignorance. You are correct, a lack of evidence supports that something does not exist. No proof is no proof. However, you choosing to absolutely deny the possibility of a things existence with out proof it cannot exist, is ignorant. Example: a person claims they saw something anything for a moment. a gost, a monster. in the very spot they claimed to have seen it, a camera happened to record the entire event in time and with a wide view of the space. the camera reveals that there was simplyy nothing there. ever. that is proof that "something" was not there. the person was wrong. period. with science, i believe the answer must be proven. I just proved that given the tools, one can PROVE something does not or never did exist. A lack of such evidence exist an atheist's belief system. they are just as blinly devout to their "superstition" of non-existence that a Christian is to theirs.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I'm an amateur science buff. I've seen many theories that provide the possible existence of Intelligent Design.
Care to cite an example of such a theory?

(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  They are just theories though.i do not believe in them myself. Theories do not prove anything. They are just theories.
This is a blatant and unfortunately very common misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context.

From Wikipedia:
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.


that post is may be true. But String theory, put fourth by Stephen Hawking(a brilliant modern theoretical physicist), is a theory in which the only "proof" is mathematical. It is an "un-proven theory". I simply meant that some theories in physics and religion are just possible mathematical solutions that the laws of physics allow. The math can be right, but only through experimentation can a theory be proven. And not ALL theories have been proven. scientist like to palce them as fact when the math is right though, because math doesn't lie. at least, until a flaw is found. Einsteins theory of relativity was flawed. and we dubbed it fact for about 90 years. until of course Stephen Hawking. and recently, a amateur physicist, who was a plumber lol, found a flaw in his work as well. we are in a constant state of learning, without the last answer.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  The only thing I believe in is physics.
You do know that the science of physics is based on numerous theories, for instance the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity, right?

yes i know this. as i just explained, even einstein was flawed, string theory countered his theory, and a plumber countered Hawkings theory. you need to get up-to-date man.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  I will not deny a faith if physics allows its POSSIBLE existence. But I wont believe the faith is real either.
What makes you think that physics "allow" the possible existence of a supernatural deity?

simply because alternate dimensions do not break the laws of physics as you will see in one of the post i just made.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  Does it exist? I do not know. and neither do you. I am simply after the truth, and won't make up my mind until I find it. And why should I? why MUST I take a side? What if i take a side, but then later i am proven wrong? I don't like to be wrong haha. So I will not give the answer. Many brilliant minds of today choose this path.
A large amount of atheists on here and in general are agnostic atheists; we are able to change our position once new evidence is brought forth. Until that moment, it would be irrational to believe in that for which there is no evidence.

it would be irrational. i agree. just as irrational as to deny its possibility to exist.
(21-12-2012 09:36 AM)TruthSeeker Wrote:  The reason I'm here is to observe why people believe what they cannot prove, both religious people and atheists. It is amusing, and brain stimulating. Smile
What exactly do you think atheists believe in that they cannot prove? I get a hunch that what you're thinking of are actually gnostic atheists.
(21-12-2012 10:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  to the latter, i believe i covered that with my retort to your "irrational" section.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - TruthSeeker - 21-12-2012 10:55 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 11:45 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 12:46 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 01:26 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 03:39 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 03:49 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 04:14 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 21-12-2012, 05:28 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 22-12-2012, 02:22 AM
Objecting the concept of a Deity - Erxomai - 22-12-2012, 02:22 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 22-12-2012, 03:37 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 22-12-2012, 02:43 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 22-12-2012, 08:54 PM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 23-12-2012, 11:14 AM
RE: Objecting the concept of a Deity - DLJ - 23-12-2012, 03:13 PM
Forum Jump: