can we agree that:
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
Darwinian evolution of species via natural selection, with some modification, has been empirically established through the accumulation of a crushing weight of scientifically gathered evidence. Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' have been exposed for the crackpot Christian fundamentalist ideas that they are (i won't dignify them with the description 'theory'😉;
just as there is no rational argument or empirical evidence establishing the existence of god, neither is there such evidence for related cultural myths such as Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, angels, an angelic war, the miracles of Jesus, heaven, hell, purgatory, limbo. etc. etc. etc. ditto for prophesies of the last days, the last trump, the rapture, heavenly virgins as a reward for dying in God's cause, etc. etc. etc. again, we lack good reasons for believing in these things;
Occam's razor, which admonishes against multiplying entities beyond necessity when constructing an explanation for phenomena, is a sound principle to work by. since god is increasingly unneeded to explain why the world is as it is, Occam's razor dictates that we not invoke god in theories that account for the way the world is. at most, we need the concept of 'god' to explain why there is something rather than nothing, and even this is debatable. at any rate, the god required is not the god of Christianity, but the god of the deists - a being that created the world and then left it alone, a god that does not interfere in the working of the world, does not reward and punish, listen to prayers, destroy entire cities, flood the entire planet and so on as per various religious tracts.
Originally posted by Blackampgod's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
can we agree that:
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
Darwinian evolution of species via natural selection, with some modification, has been ...[text shortened]... oy entire cities, flood the entire planet and so on as per various religious tracts.
False. You can't prove a negative.....It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
Darwinian evolution of species via natural selection, with some modification, has been empirically established through the accumulation of a crushing weight of scientifically gathered evidence. Creationism and so-called 'intelligent design' have been exposed for the crackpot Christian fundamentalist ideas that they are (i won't dignify them with the description 'theory'😉;
The eyeball is the spanner in Darwin's theory.....For a creature to evolve such an intricate mechanism would be impossible....or at least so unlikely to make it nonsensical.
Originally posted by huckleberryhound[/i]read the OP again, slowly. the claim was not that god does not exist, but that we lack sufficient reason to believe in god.
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
False. You can't prove a negative.....It's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist.
[i]D icate mechanism would be impossible....or at least so unlikely to make it nonsensical.
as for the complexity of the eye, that's not a problem for Darwinism at all.
Originally posted by BlackampThe onus is not on the Believer to prove the existence of god, faith is his get out clause.
[/i]read the OP again, slowly. the claim was not that god does not exist, but that we lack sufficient reason to believe in god.
as for the complexity of the eye, that's not a problem for Darwinism at all.
As for your response to my darwinian answer....that is the debating version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala"
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundsure, but can we at least agree that the existence of god has not been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence?
The onus is not on the Believer to prove the existence of god, faith is his get out clause.
As for your response to my darwinian answer....that is the debating version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala"
as for your second point, you're right, but my point was just to reply to a dogmatic assertion with another. if you really are interested in a detailed argument, i'd probably point you to something someone else has written on the topic. or just google William Paley, and you should find critiques of the eyeball complexity idea with a little digging.
Originally posted by BlackampThen you would have to equally agree that the non-existence of god has not been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence?
sure, but can we at least agree that the existence of god has not been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence?
as for your second point, you're right, but my point was just to reply to a dogmatic assertion with another. if you really are interested in a detailed argument, i'd probably point you to something someone else has w ...[text shortened]... iam Paley, and you should find critiques of the eyeball complexity idea with a little digging.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundsure, in exactly the same way that the non-existence of unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, and purple rhinoceroses on Mars has not been established in those ways either.
Then you would have to equally agree that the non-existence of god has not been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence?
again, the Occam stuff applies here. none of those entities (god and the ones just mentioned) appear to be required to explain why the world is the way it is.
Originally posted by BlackampI see how any theological discussion would go with you. Enjoy.
sure, in exactly the same way that the non-existence of unicorns, fairies at the bottom of the garden, and purple rhinoceroses on Mars has not been established in those ways either.
again, the Occam stuff applies here. none of those entities (god and the ones just mentioned) appear to be required to explain why the world is the way it is.
Originally posted by BlackampWrong forum, and also, I can prove both that God exists, and that he doesn't exist. 😏
can we agree that:
god's existence has not to date been established through either rational argument or empirical evidence; as these are the only credible sources of knowledge, we therefore lack reasons to believe in god that outweigh reasons not to believe in god;
Darwinian evolution of species via natural selection, with some modification, has been ...[text shortened]... oy entire cities, flood the entire planet and so on as per various religious tracts.
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundit would go along rational lines. if you think that eyeballs prove the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being that created the entire universe, then i think you need to go back and think about that.
I see how any theological discussion would go with you. Enjoy.