God's not dead

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
MadeFromDust said:
We're wrong about half the things we study here on this planet, but we have the universe nailed down. How it started, where it came from, and where it's going. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

We don't have a clue how (or even if) the universe started. We don't even know if the concept of cause and effect is applicable. I haven't really been following what Denny is saying, but rest assured no working scientist, atheist or otherwise, claims to have anything about universal origins nailed down.
 
magnifier661 said:
Yes I do... Just like Denny, Richard Dawkins, and many other atheists
Click to expand...


Dawkins doesn't claim to be 100% certain. In God Delusion he says something like 6 (or 6.9?) on a scale of 7. He thinks it is possible a creator exists, just very unlikely.
 
crowTrobot said:
Dawkins doesn't claim to be 100% certain. In God Delusion he says something like 6 (or 6.9?) on a scale of 7. He thinks it is possible a creator exists, just very unlikely.
Click to expand...

I think it was 6.999 and in the God hypothesis book. I maybe wrong though
 
magnifier661 said:
If I insulted you then I apologize.
Click to expand...

No biggie. Just hoped you'd think about that line of reasoning a little more closely before repeating it. Rest assured the vast majority of atheists are who they are because of how they view the evidence, not because of fear or pride.
 
crowTrobot said:
We don't have a clue how (or even if) the universe started. We don't even know if the concept of cause and effect is applicable. I haven't really been following what Denny is saying, but rest assured no working scientist, atheist or otherwise, claims to have anything about universal origins nailed down.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. All I've said is there is an enormous amount of objective evidence of the Big Bang, and it's chronology is quite well understood.

We don't know why it is the way it is or what caused it.

It's also within the realm of possibility that they got it all wrong, but I prefer science over hocus pocus.
 
crowTrobot said:
No biggie. Just hoped you'd think about that line of reasoning a little more closely before repeating it. Rest assured the vast majority of atheists are who they are because of how they view the evidence, not because of fear or pride.
Click to expand...

I understand why that implication bothered you, it bothered me too. It's like saying people only believe in god because they fear mortality. Neither are fair statements.
 
Denny Crane said:
Your analogy is flawed.

At the time of the big bang, there were no bits of anything that make up the bits of matter. So there could be no self replicating molecules. Now there are these molecules.

Something happened between now and then to make them. It wasn't "god."
Click to expand...

This is laughable. This is your idea of "proof", "science" and "logic". It wasn't "God", because I said so!
 
Someone needs to read chemistry for dummies. And it ain't me.
 
aRN4WmJ.jpg
 
God is still not dead? But this thread is so old. I'd have thought for sure, by now...
 
magnifier661 said:
I would reply with a simple answer "How can I prove you love your mom?" Only one that can answer that is you.
Click to expand...

If you define specifically what you mean by love it becomes an empirically testable question. The only reason you think it's not is because you're using the concept vaguely.
 
crowTrobot said:
If you define specifically what you mean by love it becomes an empirically testable question. The only reason you think it's not is because you're using the concept vaguely.
Click to expand...

Love is not empirically testable. Sorry...
 
crowTrobot said:
Emotions are testable. In fact it's possible to artificially trigger them.
Click to expand...

And one can easily say "I'm in love" and there is no way you, I or anyone can read if this is true. You can try and read "brain waves" whenever they talk about the person they are in love with. But in the end, there is no empirical evidence that can guarantee the results are accurate. Same with people able to beat "lie detector" tests.
 
magnifier661 said:
And one can easily say "I'm in love" and there is no way you, I or anyone can read if this is true. You can try and read "brain waves" whenever they talk about the person they are in love with. But in the end, there is no empirical evidence that can guarantee the results are accurate. Same with people able to beat "lie detector" tests.
Click to expand...



You using love semantically as if it's just some sort of vaguely defined aesthetic preference. You're welcome to define it that way, but it seems pretty trivial. You might as well substitute "prefer".

If you define love to mean a strong positive emotional reaction associated with and triggered by a particular object, that is detectable.
 
crowTrobot said:
You using love semantically as if it's just some sort of vaguely defined aesthetic preference. You're welcome to define it that way, but it seems pretty trivial. You might as well substitute "prefer".

If you define love to mean a strong positive emotional reaction associated with and triggered by a particular object, that is detectable.
Click to expand...

That's what you think love is? Really?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top