It’s not a statistic. It’s a formless claim.
3 Likes
Yes that’s true, but how we interpret that is an open question.
Again one can choose to interpret things in order to manufacture a conflict if that’s what one seeks to do.
For example how does “In the beginning God created the heavens” conflict with any physical observation? It doesn’t and one can readily see that by looking the history of astronomy and the many theists who drove those studies.
We have no idea whatsoever what led to the presence of the universe, the presence of laws and determinism, these - the engines of science - cannot themselves ever be explained scientifically.
1 Like
It’s anecdotal, an opinion, subjective, take it or leave it.
That is simply not true:
Faith
noun
- complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
- strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
The trust I place in science is not remotely comparable with religious faith, as it based on the manifest successes of that method in understanding reality.
Like your own, falsely equating religious faith with the trust people put in science.
Prove that please, since you asked me to prove I’d encountered no objective evidence for any deity, lets see you meet the same standard you are demanding of me.
You may want to read the creation myth in the bible, or the Noah flood myth.
1 Like
What I haven’t decided yet is if I think you’re serious, actually thinking this is so, or if you’re giggling with delight at a self-considered success as some sort of troll puppet master.
Either way, I view this response, as others of yours, dishonest beyond the pale.
2 Likes
Yes I know you have a basis and justification for your trust and so do I. There really is no epistemological difference here.
Cab you prove that this is a false statement:
I take it on trust just as you take other statements on trust, we have good reasons for doing so.
Try reading on…1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. before the sun?
“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.”
Still no sun?
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
Still no sun?
“And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.”
Finally the sun, though one can’t help but notice that stars are finite, they were not all brought into existence at the same time.
"20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
I hate to be pedantic, but humans evolved, and we didn’t appear in our current form until just 300k years ago, no mention of the hundreds of millions of years of tinkering with dinosaur dna either, not at odds with science, that’s without the claims for supernatural magic which of course are the very antithesis of scientific methodology.
Firstly that’s rather sad lie, secondly it does not remotely address your other lie equating the primary defintion of the word faith with religious faith, is it even worth pointing how dishonest you are being yet again?
I made no such claim, so another dishonest straw man that evades what i actually said.
To be 100% clear, here is your claim, and there is my response, your duplicitous non-sequitur has no relevance to either assertion.
FYI when I said your posts were relentlessly dishonest, this is the kind of mendacity I was talking about.
Please quote any statement I have claimed to believe without any objective evidence, which is what you are doing. That aside this is the worst kind of rank whataboutism, and one could believe literally anything using that kind of faith, which for the record I certainly do not.
I shan’t waste my time asking for examples of your “good reasons” as we all saw how that unfolded over the last 7 months of asking you offer a single example for your last superstitious claim.
I asked you specifically about this:
Could that be true? I really won’t respond to replies that take my question to you and raise fifty questions for me.
Did God create the universe, yes or no and what is your argument?
I have been doing that, you’ve asserted several times that there is no evidence for God. I asked how you can be so sure that some thing or other is not evidence, what do you look for that tells you it’s not evidence and so on, all you do is respond with further questions and personal insults.
I even started a dedicated thread where you eagerly want to participate but refuse to answer the question.
While ignoring my examples that contradict your assertion, to produce a straw man i made no claims about. Try again…with some integrity.
Google the word atheist, this should clear that question up for you. If you have some objective evidence for any deity, or that it has created anything then present it.
No. I never made that claim.
That’s a lie, I have answered your questions, and though you may find my highlighting the persistent dishonesty in your posts insulting, this does not make it untrue, nor is it ad hominem, and in each case i highlighted your dishonesty with evidence.
No you didn’t go to the thread and show me where you answer the question about how do atheists decide if something is or is not evidence for God.
There is no answer, you’d show me if there was.
Go to the thread and show me where my questions (repeated above) were answered.
When it’s accompanied by other assertions known to be not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd, as a result of diligent scientific investigation , then that initial assertion can be safely discarded, on the basis that the source is manifestly wrong on testable details. Or did this elementary concept fly past you, in your eagerness to post more mendacious ex recto apologetic fabrications?
Oh, and since cosmological physicists have already set about devising models for the origin of the observable universe in its current form, and tests of those models to determine if they are consonant with observational data, your trite assertions about the supposed “ignorance” of science on this matter are null and void.
But I suspect the relevant scientific papers are yet more primary sources you’ll dishonestly ignore, preferring instead to treat a goat herder mythology uncritically as fact.
Hou have yet to provide genuine evidence that this entity even exists, let alone poofed an entire universe into existence by waving its magic todger about.
Until you succeed in that matter, the above assertion is safely discardable.
Oh, and there’s the little matter of several million peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting in exquisite detail the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years, and as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Very well but taken in isolation, do you think it conflicts with any physical observational data?
There are in fact exactly zero naturalistic models for the origin of the laws of nature, the origin of determinism @Calilasseia and if the origin of these has no naturalistic explanation then by extension neither does the presence of the universe.
Nor can there be for the obvious reason that all scientific models/theories implicitly presume that determinism and laws already exist in order for the model to be formulated and the mathematical axioms to be stated.
Your misplaced faith in scientism and attendant misunderstanding of this subject are evident.
In short “science can’t be used to explain science”, quod erat demonstrandum as the saying goes.
What would convince you?
That’s not the statement I issued. Once again, you’re erecting a duplicitous strawman caricature of my actual words.
However, it so happens that the late Stephen Hawking was working on such a model, about which I’ve posted in another thread. So that’s another of your assertions flushed down the toilet.
2 Likes
Bullshit.
The only time the word “scientism” enters the discourse here, is when lying mythology fanboys want to misrepresent proper acceptance of evidentially supported postulates as being purportedly “symmetric” with uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, which it isn’t. Stop lying.
1 Like