If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[Taz]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

 

[ding]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

 

[Taz]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

See? You have nothing.

 

[ding]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

See? You have nothing.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. #winning.

 

[Taz]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

See? You have nothing.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. #winning.

Doesn’t even mAke any sense. Total fartsmoke.

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

See? You have nothing.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. #winning.

Doesn’t even mAke any sense. Total fartsmoke.

Can you tell me specifically what doesn’t make sense and why?

 

[Taz]

Except that you thing that science proves god. Which of course, is wrong.

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

See? You have nothing.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. #winning.

Doesn’t even mAke any sense. Total fartsmoke.

Can you tell me specifically what doesn’t make sense and why?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

And it is purely atheistic with no deference to magic. Yes, creationists assume magic. That includes you. Go ahead, tryto lie and fool somebody by saying it doesn't include you. I doubt you will even fool yourself,ya fraud. .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

 

[ding]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

See? You have nothing.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time. #winning.

Doesn’t even mAke any sense. Total fartsmoke.

Can you tell me specifically what doesn’t make sense and why?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Like what?

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

And it is purely atheistic with no deference to magic. Yes, creationists assume magic. That includes you. Go ahead, tryto lie and fool somebody by saying it doesn't include you. I doubt you will even fool yourself,ya fraud. .

You are being silly calling science atheistic. Especially since you an atheist and you shit all over science when science doesn’t suit your purpose.

I don’t believe in magic. You believe I believe in magic.

I believe that mind rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time has always existed as the matrix for the material world. The closest I can come to describing it is consciousness without form.

The reality is that space and time did have a beginning and it was created from nothing. What else besides consciousness could exist outside of space and time.

But you keep making your I believe in magic argument.

 

[ding]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

 

[diver52]

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

I do not believe in any god(s). If you want to interpret that as a a belief that there are no gods, I can't stop you. It is semantics and of no value in the topic of this thread.

And no, the lack of belief does not require absolute neutrality on the subject. A Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus. And atheist does not. Whether the atheist believes there is no god or doesn't believe in god, the end result is the same. I don't believe in any deity.

This is not semantics, unless you mean clear communication. I stated that I had never met anyone who lacked any beliefs regarding deities. I didn't say "did not believe in gods". You introduced yourself as someone who lacked any beliefs.

The lack of belief does require neutrality. Unless you have some evidence to present which tips the scales one way or the other. In the absence of evidence, any position - positive or negative - is a belief. It can be nothing else.

So my original statement still stands. I have yet to meet anyone who lacks any beliefs regarding deities.

 

[diver52]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

 

[ding]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

 

[WinterBorn]

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

I do not believe in any god(s). If you want to interpret that as a a belief that there are no gods, I can't stop you. It is semantics and of no value in the topic of this thread.

And no, the lack of belief does not require absolute neutrality on the subject. A Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus. And atheist does not. Whether the atheist believes there is no god or doesn't believe in god, the end result is the same. I don't believe in any deity.

This is not semantics, unless you mean clear communication. I stated that I had never met anyone who lacked any beliefs regarding deities. I didn't say "did not believe in gods". You introduced yourself as someone who lacked any beliefs.

The lack of belief does require neutrality. Unless you have some evidence to present which tips the scales one way or the other. In the absence of evidence, any position - positive or negative - is a belief. It can be nothing else.

So my original statement still stands. I have yet to meet anyone who lacks any beliefs regarding deities.

The standard you used was the question of the divinity of Jesus. Since I do not believe in any deity, I do not believe in his divinity. To be neutral would be to accept that Jesus may have been divine.

 

[diver52]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

 

[diver52]

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

I do not believe in any god(s). If you want to interpret that as a a belief that there are no gods, I can't stop you. It is semantics and of no value in the topic of this thread.

And no, the lack of belief does not require absolute neutrality on the subject. A Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus. And atheist does not. Whether the atheist believes there is no god or doesn't believe in god, the end result is the same. I don't believe in any deity.

This is not semantics, unless you mean clear communication. I stated that I had never met anyone who lacked any beliefs regarding deities. I didn't say "did not believe in gods". You introduced yourself as someone who lacked any beliefs.

The lack of belief does require neutrality. Unless you have some evidence to present which tips the scales one way or the other. In the absence of evidence, any position - positive or negative - is a belief. It can be nothing else.

So my original statement still stands. I have yet to meet anyone who lacks any beliefs regarding deities.

The standard you used was the question of the divinity of Jesus. Since I do not believe in any deity, I do not believe in his divinity. To be neutral would be to accept that Jesus may have been divine.

I provided an example, not a standard. I could as well have used Ozgarth the Worm God. But yes, to be neutral you have to accept Jesus may have been divine. Unless you have some evidence that he was or was not divine, any position other than neutrality is a belief.

I personally think Jesus was not divine. But that is a belief. I am not neutral and I have no evidence to support my opinion.

 

[ding]

More like existence proves God’s existence. I don’t see how it could be any other way.

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

I do not believe in any god(s). If you want to interpret that as a a belief that there are no gods, I can't stop you. It is semantics and of no value in the topic of this thread.

And no, the lack of belief does not require absolute neutrality on the subject. A Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus. And atheist does not. Whether the atheist believes there is no god or doesn't believe in god, the end result is the same. I don't believe in any deity.

This is not semantics, unless you mean clear communication. I stated that I had never met anyone who lacked any beliefs regarding deities. I didn't say "did not believe in gods". You introduced yourself as someone who lacked any beliefs.

The lack of belief does require neutrality. Unless you have some evidence to present which tips the scales one way or the other. In the absence of evidence, any position - positive or negative - is a belief. It can be nothing else.

So my original statement still stands. I have yet to meet anyone who lacks any beliefs regarding deities.

The standard you used was the question of the divinity of Jesus. Since I do not believe in any deity, I do not believe in his divinity. To be neutral would be to accept that Jesus may have been divine.

I provided an example, not a standard. I could as well have used Ozgarth the Worm God. But yes, to be neutral you have to accept Jesus may have been divine. Unless you have some evidence that he was or was not divine, any position other than neutrality is a belief.

I personally think Jesus was not divine. But that is a belief. I am not neutral and I have no evidence to support my opinion.

No. The definition of "Atheist" is someone who does not believe in any god or deity. The question of Jesus being divine is based on there being a god.

Its like this. If I collect stamps, I have a hobby. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.