Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Mudda]

What makes you think the creator isnt scientifically explanable when everything else is? Is this God of the gaps? Sure is. Anything we can't explain must be God. Until we explain it then we fill in that gap.

What other things do you believe in that science can't explain?

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

 

[Czernobog]

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

 

[sealybobo]

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is evidenced, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

I do.

 

[sealybobo]

Science can't explain why it is not possible to have external forces outside of our universe. In fact, some scientists theorize that there are other universes outside of ours, so there would be, in fact, other beings outside our universe.

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclision.

I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.

You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.

It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.

Your argument: There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. This is why Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And it is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

 

[Mudda]

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No one is "excluding an external force". In fact if we are in a lava lamp type universe it most certainly was external pressures that created our bubble. But eventually our bubble will die. And sure our bubble had a beginning. Still what makes you think a god exists?

Let me ask you something. Are you agnostic about Mary being a virgin?

 

[Mudda]

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclision.

I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.

You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.

It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.

Your argument: There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. This is why Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And it is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

You got me wrong again, lol. I didn't say that there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist, it's that there's no evidence that a god CAN'T exist. Maybe that's your problem.

 

[sealybobo]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Which bubble/universe do we live in? These are gods lava lamps.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclision.

I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.

You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.

It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.

Your argument: There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. This is why Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And it is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

You got me wrong again, lol. I didn't say that there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist, it's that there's no evidence that a god CAN'T exist. Maybe that's your problem.

Sure a god could exist. So just because one COULD exist you think it's 50 50? No you don't. You lean atheist bra.

 

[Mudda]

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No one is "excluding an external force". In fact if we are in a lava lamp type universe it most certainly was external pressures that created our bubble. But eventually our bubble will die. And sure our bubble had a beginning. Still what makes you think a god exists?

Let me ask you something. Are you agnostic about Mary being a virgin?

Again, I never said that a god exists.
Mary could have gotten pregnant while still being a virgin. I just explained how in another thread and I got warned by a mod and it was erased, so I'll let you imagine how, LOL!

 

[Mudda]

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclision.

I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.

You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.

It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.

Your argument: There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. This is why Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And it is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

You got me wrong again, lol. I didn't say that there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist, it's that there's no evidence that a god CAN'T exist. Maybe that's your problem.

Sure a god could exist. So just because one COULD exist you think it's 50 50? No you don't. You lean atheist bra.

50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

 

[sealybobo]

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No one is "excluding an external force". In fact if we are in a lava lamp type universe it most certainly was external pressures that created our bubble. But eventually our bubble will die. And sure our bubble had a beginning. Still what makes you think a god exists?

Let me ask you something. Are you agnostic about Mary being a virgin?

Again, I never said that a god exists.
Mary could have gotten pregnant while still being a virgin. I just explained how in another thread and I got warned by a mod and it was erased, so I'll let you imagine how, LOL!

That reminds me of the movie Don't Breath. He was going to impregnate her with a turkey baster.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not ruling out external forces either. Now tell us why you think the God hypothesis is just as likely true as not.

You're not giving the notion an open mind you're saying there's an equal chance it exists as opposed to not.

It's a yes/no proposition, whether there's an external force or not. That's 50/50. I guess you could look at it and say there's a billion different ways the universe could have come into being, so it's one in a billion chance? I dunno, lol. It seems like it's both, lol.

Your argument: There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. This is why Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

And it is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

You got me wrong again, lol. I didn't say that there's no evidence that a god doesn't exist, it's that there's no evidence that a god CAN'T exist. Maybe that's your problem.

Sure a god could exist. So just because one COULD exist you think it's 50 50? No you don't. You lean atheist bra.

50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

Is it rational? Is it even a theory? No it is not. Not a scientific one. It's a hypothesis at best.

 

[Czernobog]

Maybe he can explain why God carries more weight with him then your giant hampster or is he equally agnostic about that? Is the probability your hampster exists 50 50 mudda?

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No. We're talking about your cowardly, and inconsistant willingness to sit on the fence when not doing so may offend a bunch of people, but having no problem being rational when it offends no one.

 

[pinqy]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

 

[Mudda]

I'm not saying that I'm agnostic on every question ever asked, lol, just when we talk about universes coming into being, that I think that it is highly illogical to exclude external force(s) as a potential component in our creation, given that there isn't any evidence to suggest such an exclusion.

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No. We're talking about your cowardly, and inconsistant willingness to sit on the fence when not doing so may offend a bunch of people, but having no problem being rational when it offends no one.

You put forward a scenario that you think is douche to start with, then get upset because I don't think that your dumb hamster situation is possible. And you wonder why I don't agree with you?

 

[Mudda]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

 

[Czernobog]

There also isn't any evidence to suggest the excusion of the Giant Invisible Space Hamsters. Why would you be so cruel as to deny them hamster habitats?

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No. We're talking about your cowardly, and inconsistant willingness to sit on the fence when not doing so may offend a bunch of people, but having no problem being rational when it offends no one.

You put forward a scenario that you think is douche to start with, then get upset because I don't think that your dumb hamster situation is possible. And you wonder why I don't agree with you? [emoji38]

Who are you to insist my theory is douche? Why are my hamsters any less likely than God? Just because no one has built a buch of temples to them?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Mudda]

I see no proof of your G.I.S.H. Come back when you have some and we'll discuss what kind of housing they might need.

So...you take the null position of "Invisible Giant Space Hamsters do not exist" until evidence of their existence is presented, but you don't have to balls to do the same about God, without positive evidence to prove the negative about God? You see the problem with yout position, right?

The G.I.S.H. exist in your drunken imagination, so there, you got what you wanted?
We're talking about the origins of the universe here and excluding an external force without proof that an external force is not possible to have influenced the creation of the universe is highly illogical.

No. We're talking about your cowardly, and inconsistant willingness to sit on the fence when not doing so may offend a bunch of people, but having no problem being rational when it offends no one.

You put forward a scenario that you think is douche to start with, then get upset because I don't think that your dumb hamster situation is possible. And you wonder why I don't agree with you? [emoji38]

Who are you to insist my theory is douche? Why are my hamsters any less likely than God? Just because no one has built a buch of temples to them?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

If your saying that the external force of the universe if it exists is huge hamsters, then ok, they could be hamsters, I don't see why not.

 

[pinqy]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?