If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[ZenMode]

The Avatars of Hinduism are mythological. Not historical. The literary style of the Baghavad Gita is mythology.

Islam reveres the Abrahamic God, and is based on historical persons: Jesus and Muhammed.

Shamanism, paganism, and animism do not claim to be religious traditions based on historical events and historical people.

The existence of specific humans on earth doesn't prove the existence of any God.

You're not even will to say you are convinced and thoroughly believe the cause of the universe and it's rational-lawful organization is because of a purely inanimate physical, non-rational reason.

So you are agnostic, not atheist.

I'm atheist. Based on the available evidence, or lack thereof, I see no reason to believe in any god.

There is no conceivable chance science will ever explain what came before this universe, why it happened, why it's lawfully organized and mathematically rational.

True, at least not in our lifetimes and I'm ok with admitting I may never know WITHOUT filling in the unknown with deities.

Those are philosophical questions

Not really.

Science is an empirical method that makes accurate predictions of the momentum, transformation, and conservation of matter and energy.

Ok

Logic and rationality are our tools to investigate philosophical and metaphysical questions.

Ok

You yourself said you can't explain why the universe appears rational and designed,

Because it doesn't appear rational and designed to me. It looks like a chaotic mess with shit flying around, colliding, exploding, imploding and that's not even getting into black holes.....

and you're not even willing to say you are convinced it is because of purely inanimate and irrational physical reasons.

I'm willing to say "I don't know" and leaving it at that, without filling in....the gap in my knowledge.

 

[Cypress]

Rightsl, and for many people that "logical inference" is a sky wizard. Which sky wizard? Well, that's going to almost entirely depend on when you were alive, where you were born and who you were born to.

But something, ain't God, can create something from nothing?

In a purely physical material universe, something cannot come from nothing, at least to the extent the laws of conservation would be violated.

That logically leaves only the possibility that a purposeful force or entity outside the universe and beyond space, time, and matter was the cause.

The opinion that the universe is organized is just that... And opinion. I look at the universe and I see complete disorder.

You would be dissuaded of that opinion if you took some physics, astronomy, and cosmology classes.

 

[gmark77]

The existence of specific humans on earth doesn't prove the existence of any God.

I'm atheist. Based on the available evidence, or lack thereof, I see no reason to believe in any god.

True, at least not in our lifetimes and I'm ok with admitting I may never know WITHOUT filling in the unknown with deities.

Not really.

Ok

Ok

Because it doesn't appear rational and designed to me. It looks like a chaotic mess with shit flying around, colliding, exploding, imploding and that's not even getting into black holes.....

I'm willing to say "I don't know" and leaving it at that, without filling in....the gap in my knowledge.

What seems to be happening is:

1. Cy claims that since many people believe there may have been an actual person named Joshua who was an end-times preacher in the Levant about 2000 years ago that we are required to assume there is at least a 50% chance he was actually God incarnate because someone said so. That's the nature of his version of "agnosticism". It disallows him to question ANY claim whatsoever. By his metric one must be agnostic about Santa Claus because someone said something about Santa Claus and there was actually a Saint Nicholas ergo there is at least a 50% chance that he magically visits all good children on Christmas eve.

2. Cy likes "Science" when he can google a random equation and post that (it makes him feel like he looks smart) but will disavow science when scientific epistemological systems get applied to the "God Claim". Suddenly asking for evidence that is rational and could objectively convince people is strictly forbidden in religious discussions.

This silliness of "agnosticism" is just a cover. My thought is Cy is actually a bible thumper but he tries to hide it either because he thinks it makes him look less "erudite" or he's trying to play fast against atheists. But his hatred of atheism is amazing to watch. If he actually WAS an agnostic he'd be able to understand implicit atheism, but he can't. And he hates hates hates atheists.

He's a thumper and God-botherer. Seems like you might be close to cracking him and maybe getting him to be honest.

 

[Hume]

This silliness of "agnosticism" is just a cover. My thought is Cy is actually a bible thumper but he tries to hide it either because he thinks it makes him look less "erudite" or he's trying to play fast against atheists.

He's a thumper and God-botherer.

Cypress is basically a Christian fundamentalist. He comes here to save souls.

 

[ZenMode]

My thought is Cy is actually a bible thumper

Agree. Maybe not a full on thumper, but a believer.

 

[gfm7175]

Right, you listed off several of the events that go against science

??????

and have yet to prove that your God exists

I'm not attempting to prove that my God exists. It takes faith in order to accept him as LORD and Savior.

When are you going to prove that miracles don't happen?

and is not just a god of the gaps,

??????

or that miracles, which by their very nature, go against science, have ever happened.

When are you going to prove that miracles don't happen?

 

[gfm7175]

You arrange your life around something you have never seen

Correct. BTW, I've never seen gaseous oxygen either, yet my life wholly depends upon it.

and never spoken to

I've spoken to God. The common term for that is 'prayer'.

and there are no videos for people to even deny.

Right. Instead, there are scriptures for people to deny.

 

[gfm7175]

Let's get to the root of your error. You are claiming, through implication, that only those things mentioned in the Bible occurred, i.e. that if it isn't mentioned in the Bible, it didn't occur. WWII isn't mentioned in the Bible, ergo, your position is that it didn't occur.

Otherwise, many things happened outside the "geneology" you mentioned, that you are not including in the age of the earth.

Right. I think that John 21:25 states it rather well: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

[gfm7175]

I would never be foolish enough to base any religious belief on a video. Videos can be faked.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q60mSMmhTZU

See, @ZenMode ... Cypress is supporting my position that even if it were caught on video, it still wouldn't be believed.

 

[ZenMode]

??????

I'm not attempting to prove that my God exists. It takes faith in order to accept him as LORD and Savior.

Faith just means you believe something on bad evidence.

When are you going to prove that miracles don't happen?

When are you going to prove there isn't an island full of rainbow unicorns in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean

??????

When are you going to prove that miracles don't happen?

When are you going to prove that the moon isn't actually made of cheese?

 

[Into the Night]

Correct. I can quote The Lord of the Rings, too.

In The Lord of the Rings, it says that when the elves die, they go to Valinor, but they can be reborn in Middle Earth.



Oh, in case you are thinking about continuing to play dumb, no, I don't think the Lord of the rings is based in reality.

YARP. Buzzword fallacies. Go learn what 'reality' means.

 

[Into the Night]

So, you believe God can change the atomic structure of water to make a liquid into a solid so a person can walk on it?

Heck...I SKATE on it! Great fun!

 

[gfm7175]

The existence of specific humans on earth doesn't prove the existence of any God.

It doesn't disprove the existence of any God either.

I'm atheist.

You believe that gods don't exist. It is a faith-based belief.

Based on the available evidence, or lack thereof, I see no reason to believe in any god.

... yet you DO see reason to NOT believe in any god. It is a faith-based belief.

I'm willing to say "I don't know" and leaving it at that, without filling in....the gap in my knowledge.

No you're not. You believe that gods don't exist. It is a faith-based belief.

 

[Into the Night]

that's not how he does it.

You've never seen ice??

 

[Into the Night]

That still leaves you nothing but an interpretation based on several untested and unconfirmed assumptions. There is no age of the earth mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

More importantly, genealogy only leaves you with the age of human history. Not Earth history. Genesis 1 includes more than just human history. The days in Genesis 1 do not necessarily correspond to 24 hour periods. The passage of time for God could be different in the same way the passage of time for a photon is radically different from the passage of time for a human.

God did not write the Bible. Even Jews admit that Moses supposedly wrote the Pentatuch. God did not write Psalms. God did not write anything in the New Testament.

No it doesn't matter scientifically. If you really believed that you would be insisting that we throw out Aristotle, Plato, Descartes because their science and natural philosophy is radically different from modern physics.

It doesn't matter theologically either. I've never been to any mainstream church where believing a 6000 year old Earth was part of the creed.

Genesis 1 and 2 are widely recognized as Hebrew poetry. Poetic writing is not scientific writing.

Do you scientifically analyze poetry? Do you read Samuel Taylor Coleridge or Ralph Waldo Emerson looking for scientific mistakes?

That's right, you don't.

No one owns science. Science is not a person.
Plato created no theory of science.
Descartes created no theory of science.
Aristtotle's theories of science have been falsified. They are no longer theories of any kind.

 

[Into the Night]

And how would you know how he does it? You've never seen him. You've never talked to him. You've never seen anyone walk on water, come back from the dead after 3 days, etc.

I walk and skate on water just fine.
People even drive on it.

 

[Into the Night]

That is a rather big mystery and conundrum that you casually blew by.

Why would a lawfully organized, mathematically rational, finely tuned universe just blink into existence by purely inanimate random chance?

The Universe is unorganized.

There has never, ever been any situation in your life where the rational came from the irrational, and where something came from nothing.

Buzzword fallacies. Go learn English and logic.

You just took it for granted that a mathematically rational universe exists without even pausing to ask the deeper question 'why?'

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'rational' means.

Where did these universal laws of physics come from and why do they exist?

The Universe is not a law of physics.

Does it seem logical to you that they could just result from chance and purely inanimate reasons?

What makes you think the Universe has an origin?

 

[Into the Night]

Are you having fun debating with religious people, Zen?

A lot easier to do than to debate with folk of an agnostic perspective, isn't it?

You can feel that you are "lording" over them.

Two groups...one guessing about REALITY one way...and the other guessing about REALITY in another, incompatible, way.

Be brave, Zen...take on the agnostic perspective.

You can start by telling us what you see as inconsistent about my personal perspective on the question:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

C'mon. Give it a shot.

Reality isn't guessed.
To each person, reality is a true and certain thing.

 

[gfm7175]

What seems to be happening is:

Is this the part of the performance where you completely WHIFF on what is actually happening? Let's find out!

1. Cy claims that since many people believe there may have been an actual person named Joshua who was an end-times preacher in the Levant about 2000 years ago that we are required to assume there is at least a 50% chance he was actually God incarnate because someone said so.

There's no requirement to assume anything, but that IS evidence for Christianity.

That's the nature of his version of "agnosticism". It disallows him to question ANY claim whatsoever.

By his metric one must be agnostic about Santa Claus because someone said something about Santa Claus and there was actually a Saint Nicholas ergo there is at least a 50% chance that he magically visits all good children on Christmas eve.

There's no requirement, but that IS evidence for Santa Claus.

2. Cy likes "Science" when he can google a random equation and post that (it makes him feel like he looks smart) but will disavow science when scientific epistemological systems get applied to the "God Claim".

Religion is not science, skidmark.

Suddenly asking for evidence that is rational and could objectively convince people is strictly forbidden in religious discussions.

Not at all. You are probably conflating evidence and proof, skidmark.

This silliness of "agnosticism" is just a cover. My thought is Cy is actually a bible thumper but he tries to hide it either because he thinks it makes him look less "erudite" or he's trying to play fast against atheists. But his hatred of atheism is amazing to watch. If he actually WAS an agnostic he'd be able to understand implicit atheism, but he can't. And he hates hates hates atheists.

He's a thumper and God-botherer. Seems like you might be close to cracking him and maybe getting him to be honest.

Psychoquackery.

Yup, you ARE completely WHIFFING on everything here.

 

[gfm7175]

Cypress is basically a Christian fundamentalist. He comes here to save souls.