Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
Thanks.
You are living in a dream world.
Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
Beliefs versus Knowledge
Do you believe God exists ?
Are you an atheist ?
No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.
FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".
Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.
Thanks.
You are living in a dream world.
Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
Beliefs versus Knowledge
Do you believe God exists ?
Are you an atheist ?
No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.
You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
Beliefs versus Knowledge
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
You are spinning it just like Daws.
Do you believe God exists ?
Are you an atheist ?
No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
Are you an agnostic ?
The argument for design is easily excluded when there is no evidence to support the claim. You're promoting religious belief which hangs on supposition and faith. Science has standards of proof (to acknowledge the term "proof" is not consistent with the scientific paradigm) and verification.You are living in a dream world.
Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Like professor lennox said in his debate with dawkins God is the agent of design. You can't exclude the agent on any design. How do you know it was not designed if it appears to have been designed for a purpose ?
You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)
I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position
Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).
Beliefs versus Knowledge
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity
1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
You are spinning it just like Daws.
Your source is terrible. Anyway, Notice, that in this definition for atheism, it talks about BELIEF. IN the definition for agnostic, it talks about knowledge.
When this source says:
"broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god," they are simply incorrect, even by their own definition. It is an internally contradictory definition. In the first part of the definition, it talks about knowledge. In the second part, it talks about belief, and also about non-commitment to a belief... that is atheism.
Also, when it says atheism is the "doctrine" that there is no deity... that is just hilariously false.
What is your source on this? It's really bad. I suspect the discovery institute or Ken Hamm. Although, to be fair, there is a lot of misinformation about these two terms and some sources may incorrectly cite these falsehoods or "street definitions" as the true definition, when in fact, they are not.
wikipedia:
Put simply theism and atheism deal with belief, and agnosticism deals with (absence of) rational claims to asserting knowledge.
It's as simple as that.
No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.
Are you an agnostic ?
Yes
I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.You are living in a dream world.
Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:
1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.
Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
Are you an agnostic ?
Yes
You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.
You can't be both because one is unwilling to take a position and the other has a firm position.
No! That is not the definition of an Agnostic!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I EXPLAIN THIS?
I will not debate you on this any further. You are unable to follow this discussion, and I will not waste my time. I have explained extensively the definitions and concepts of these terms, but you seem not to be able to follow or choose not to.
I am an agnostic atheist.
I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
And with consistency, you sidestep and retreat when asked to provide a single verifiable "unnatural" event or circumstance.I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.
Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.
It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.
You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...
And with consistency, you sidestep and retreat when asked to provide a single verifiable "unnatural" event or circumstance.You're correct. That is why it is not science, and it never will be. They are sneaking creationism through the backdoor with "Intelligent Design" and actually believe it is a science. The problem is that it is an unfalsifiable claim, again, because you can't test or falsify the hypothesis that it is an intelligent designer, and it provides zero predictive power. It's simply giving up on the idea that natural explanations are possible, and actually suggests that we stop looking for any more answers, because we have found the answer: it is an invisible being that can't be tested in any way. The total absurdity of this proposition is really tough to imagine when you sit back and look at where we are in history, with all we can accomplish. I find it an insult to science and the scientific method, and even moreso that these people want to call it science. It resembles nothing of science.
Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.
Do you realize that pretending these questions are not asked and pretending that others do not see your denials is an embarrassment for you? Or at least it should be. You seem completely disinterested in the credibility of your argument.
