Czernobog
Gold Member
- Sep 29, 2014
- 6,184
- 495
- Thread starter
- #421
No it's not. Now you're just lying. My premise is God does not exist. I am more than willing to abandon this position, as soon as i am provided with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary. You just want to pretend that it's a conclusion, so that you don't seem as close-minded by continuing to keep your death grip on your conclusion.The difference between us, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that my belief is a premise, while your is a conclusion. With sufficient evidence I am willing to be convinced. You, on the other hand, insist on your believe with nothing but your personal experience. Further, I don't ridicule you for your beliefs. I do point out that your expectation that anyone else believe what you believe sans evidence is irrational. At best, you statement, "You have no more basis in which to believe God doesn't exist than I have to believe God does exist," is an advocation for agnosticism, not for theism.
Well no... it's certainly NOT a "premise" to state that God doesn't exist. That is a conclusion that God doesn't exist. If you said "I don't think God exists" that would be a premise but that isn't what you say.
No, it's not. There is no evidence of anything other than the physical universe. If you cannot provide objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of a thing, I have no compelling reason to believe that thing exists. That is not irrational, it is the very definition of rational, reasonable thought.My position doesn't require you to acknowledge my beliefs. My personal experience is all that I require for my beliefs and it doesn't rely on your acceptance or evaluation of my evidence. I have no problem with you saying you don't believe God exists, it's when you state that God doesn't exist because I can't give you physical proof that God exists, that I have a problem with your position. That's an irrational and illogical position.
You are not an agnostic. When you say "God exists" you have taken a position, just as I have when I state God does not exist. Agnosticism, by definition, takes no position on the existence, or non-existence of God. Again, the difference is that your position is that of a conclusion from which you are unwilling to ever budge, whereas mine is a premise which I will gladly abandon, just as soon as I am presented with objective, verifiable evidence to the contrary.As for philosophical agnosticism, I believe we are all agnostic because no one can prove or disprove the existence of God. In essence, it all relies on our faith and that goes for both sides. You have just as much faith that God doesn't exist as I have that God does exist. Neither of us can prove the other wrong... yet we continue this endless and pointless debate.