Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

[Omega Man]

Oh but there's a universe of proof for the existence of God all right.

No there isn't. Try defining what God is first, then look for the evidence. But don't go placing the "proof" cart directly in front of the evidence horse; and then proclaim "Aha, look!"


OM

 

[Angel]

I didn’t say you have to posit an existing god concept, but you do have to have some concept of a being which nothing greater can be conceived. A generalized Prime Mover clearly fails.

Why must one "have some concept of a being which nothing greater can be conceived"?
Why does the Prime Mover fail?
I don't think I agree with either of these points, but would hear your reasons for thinking them true.

The strength of the cosmological argument is that it doesn’t need a particular god concept. But ironically, that’s also its weakness. The only conclusion the cosmological argument can make is that “something” started everything else. As soon as one tries to answer the question of what that something is, that’s in addition to, and not part of, the CA.

My issue is that there is no meaningful difference between “something started the universe but I don’t know what it is or how it did it” and “I don’t know how the universe started.”

The words "something" and "God" are not synonymous.
The phrase "Something that started the universe" and the word "God" do have the same or similar meaning.
There is a world of difference between "I don't know how the universe started" and "God started the universe."

 

[Angel]

No there isnt. Your evidence is subjective.

There is just as much evidence for multiple gods as one, the same as for none.

And no, you are the one confused. I'm not talking religions, I'm only talking number of gods. You keep referring to "god" in the singular. That is meaningful. You are talking monotheism, whether you admit it or not. If a single powerful entity of any kind can be said to have evidence of existing, so to can multiple of that same entity type.

The evidence is all around you and within you, and you are still conflating religion and philosophy. You assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, you are still confused.

 

[Angel]

No there isn't. Try defining what God is first, then look for the evidence. But don't go placing the "proof" cart directly in front of the evidence horse; and then proclaim "Aha, look!"

Yes there is.
Let's hear your reasons for thinking definition is prior to evidence, and while you do so identify the kind of priority you're talking about.

 

[roguenuke]

The evidence is all around you and within you, and you are still conflating religion and philosophy. You assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, you are still confused.

According to you. Others disagree, and your evidence is subjective, which means it isnt objective, hence does not prove anything.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Angel]

According to you. Others disagree, and your evidence is subjective, which means it isnt objective, hence does not prove anything.

No, according to anyone whose mind is not closed. It's not a matter of agreement -- if you don't see green where most people do, it's not a matter of agreement or disagreement, it's a matter of color blindness. And what your not seeing, Madame, is as objective as things get.

 

[roguenuke]

No, according to anyone whose mind is not closed. It's not a matter of agreement -- if you don't see green where most people do, it's not a matter of agreement or disagreement, it's a matter of color blindness. And what your not seeing, Madame, is as objective as things get.

Not how it works. To you, a closed mind is someone who doesnt agree with you. That simply isnt how it works. I look at the same things you do and do not come to the same conclusions. In fact, many people dont.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Angel]

Not how it works. To you, a closed mind is someone who doesnt agree with you. That simply isnt how it works. I look at the same things you do and do not come to the same conclusions. In fact, many people dont.

Uh-huh, "many people" -- in other words Internet Atheists, the most close-minded group of anonymous contrarians ever to come down the pike. The analogy to color-blindness is right on the money. Your assertions are nugatory.

 

[Omega Man]

Yes there is.
Let's hear your reasons for thinking definition is prior to evidence, and while you do so identify the kind of priority you're talking about.

No there isn't. You have provided nothing to prove there is. If you did, you would have single-handedly changed all of human history and understanding.


OM

 

[roguenuke]

Uh-huh, "many people" -- in other words Internet Atheists, the most close-minded group of anonymous contrarians ever to come down the pike. The analogy to color-blindness is right on the money. Your assertions are nugatory.

No. Anyone who does not have the same views as yourself, which is most people, even those who believe in a god.

I'm agnostic, not atheist.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Angel]

No. Anyone who does not have the same views as yourself, which is most people, even those who believe in a god.

I'm agnostic, not atheist.

Your talking through your bonnet, Madame, and there's a bee in it for some reason. I think it's because deep down you know I'm right and it makes you uneasy because a lifetime of mistaken belief, or lack of belief, has been exposed like a raw nerve.

 

[Angel]

No there isn't. You have provided nothing to prove there is. If you did, you would have single-handedly changed all of human history and understanding.

I have single-handedly accomplished what's never been done before, yes, though history, you may need to learn, is unalterable, and human understanding is everyone's, and so mine as well, to change single-handedly.

Now where are the arguments for priority you were challenged to produce?.

 

[HIP56948]

oT stsiehtA : roU nlaP sI gnikroW yltcefreP

 

[Angel]

oT stsiehtA : roU nlaP sI gnikroW yltcefreP

Tahw nalp, mirglip?

 

[Angel]

You are so smart!

Smart enough not to post frivolously.

 

[Angel]

I'm agnostic, not atheist....

Same nougat center in both.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No. Anyone who does not have the same views as yourself, which is most people, even those who believe in a god.

I'm agnostic, not atheist.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Same nougat center in both.

Wow, this might be one thing I actually agree with Angel on. Agnosticism and atheism are a distinction without a difference. If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist.

Being an atheist does not mean you reject the possibility that god might be real. Theism/atheism answers the question of BELIEF, as in do you believe in god or not. Gnosticism/Agnosticism answers the question of KNOWLEDGE, as in whether you think knowing God exists is possible or not.

The two sets of terms are not mutually exclusive. You can be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist or agnostic theist. I am an agnostic atheist. Sure, god could theoretically exists but there's no way to know that and I currently don't believe in him.

Tl;Dr, if you don't currently believe in god, you're an atheist Roguenuke, just own it. Holding out the possibility you may be wrong doesn't change that.

 

[Angel]

The Lady Vanishes.

 

[Omega Man]

I have single-handedly accomplished what's never been done before,

What, procreated a humanoid unique to your genetics?


OM

 

[Omega Man]

Agnosticism and atheism are a distinction without a difference.

Not in the least. One does not believe, while the other simply admits they don't know for certain. That's a rather relative distinction.


OM

 

[Peter King]

Wow, this might be one thing I actually agree with Angel on. Agnosticism and atheism are a distinction without a difference. If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist.

Being an atheist does not mean you reject the possibility that god might be real. Theism/atheism answers the question of BELIEF, as in do you believe in god or not. Gnosticism/Agnosticism answers the question of KNOWLEDGE, as in whether you think knowing God exists is possible or not.

The two sets of terms are not mutually exclusive. You can be a gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist or agnostic theist. I am an agnostic atheist. Sure, god could theoretically exists but there's no way to know that and I currently don't believe in him.

Tl;Dr, if you don't currently believe in god, you're an atheist Roguenuke, just own it. Holding out the possibility you may be wrong doesn't change that.

You do know that is incorrect? An atheist does mean you reject the possibility of a god, that is the whole basis behind atheism.

An atheist doesn't believe in a god or divine being. ... However, an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in a god or religious doctrine. Agnostics assert that it's impossible for human beings to know anything about how the universe was created and if divine beings exist.

What’s The Difference Between Atheism And Agnosticism? - Everything After Z by Dictionary.com

 

[Angel]

You do know that is incorrect? An atheist does mean you reject the possibility of a god, that is the whole basis behind atheism.

Do you know that is incorrect? No, of course you don't. Rejecting or denying the existence of God and rejecting or denying the possibility of God are not the same thing, are two different things, are logically and categorically different.

If you don't understand this or disagree -- and of course you won't understand this and will disagree -- explain for us the impossibility of God.

This means, in case you don't follow it, that you don't know what atheism is.

 

[Peter King]

Do you know that is incorrect? No, of course you don't. Rejecting or denying the existence of God and rejecting or denying the possibility of God are not the same thing, are two different things, are logically and categorically different.

If you don't understand this or disagree -- and of course you won't understand this and will disagree -- explain for us the impossibility of God.

This means, in case you don't follow it, that you don't know what atheism is.

Of course I don't :lamo :lamo :2wave:

Definition of agnostic

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such 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

Agnostic | Definition of Agnostic by Merriam-Webster

Definition of atheist

: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

Atheist | Definition of Atheist by Merriam-Webster

Very simple, as an atheist I know there is nothing like a god, or magic people around whom fantasies have been written (holy books).

And why should I write about something that does not exist, because clearly you are the one who does not know what atheism is.

 

[Angel]

Of course I don't :lamo :lamo :2wave:

Very simple, as an atheist I know there is nothing like a god, or magic people around whom fantasies have been written (holy books).

And why should I write about something that does not exist, because clearly you are the one who does not know what atheism is.

Thanks for proving me right yet again.

Okay, second time around.

Denying the existence of God and denying the possibility of God are two different and distinct epistemological claims. You do not recognize the difference, and therefore your assertions about atheism are muddled and confused.

 

[Peter King]

Thanks for proving me right yet again.

Okay, second time around.

Denying the existence of God and denying the possibility of God are two different and distinct epistemological claims. You do not recognize the difference, and therefore your assertions about atheism are muddled and confused.

You did read my post? Or are you writing without any knowledge about what I wrote?

I stated that atheism and agnostic are not the same thing, or did you not understand that little snippet?

I am an atheist, there are no gods, period.

I am not an agnostic because agnostic just say they do not know whether or not a god exists, it may but it may not. Hence the difference between atheists and agnostics. Is that so difficult to understand.

And no, my statements about atheism are accurate (look at the definition), it is you who are making a muddled and confused comment.