Biff the unclean

Since you go to such great lengths to tell us how you don't know something, and further more cannot possible in your wildest imagination ever know it. And then constantly turn around and tell us that you believe it, and tell us what you know about it then I cannot picture you not being sure of anything.
You are already sure of something that you boast that you don't know. I can't imagine you suddenly becoming wishy-washy if you ever (I won't hold my breath) developed an opinion actually based on fact.

Buffman

Beats me! Why do humans have to be governed by food, water and air?

Umbrae

Thanks Biff for proving once again that all atheists really seem to do is bash people. Frankly I never said I wasn't sure...all arguments of ignorance I use is against atheists not being able to disproove God when their entire system of rationalization is based on proofs and evidence and keeping options open until disproven. In my mind, I am sure of the existance of God for my own reasons. I simply point out that the atheist argument of ignorance is pathetic and counter productive to their entire stance on existance.


That was not the direction the question was going. The question is there to point out that the universe could be governed by physics, some law unknown to use more complex than physics but similar in a way that what we can with our technology percieve is only modern-day physics (when I refer to physics I mean modern day and when I refer to another law I mean something that would contradict physics but perhaps working on another level of logic so as to not interfere), or both physics and another law but in such a way that we do not percieve this other law. This could hold true for humans as well mind you.

One should always grasp what he can and strive for what he can't. But one should also realize that he is confined to a little foggy class ball on a big table. He can see through the fog just enough to know there is someting on the other side, but he can't see enough to understand it.

Buffman

Care to explain how?

When you introduce an animal skeleton into evidence, you are providing something of natural world origins for examination and verification. I guess when you provide the skeleton of an angel or a holy ghost for examination and verification I will have to re-examine some of my own beliefs. However, to equate that not knowing if the skeleton of x is/isn't a member of animal species Y, as being identical to knowing or not knowing if there is a supernatural god, causes me to wonder if you know the differences between fact and fiction.

Umbrae

Then you must not be very intelligent Mr. Biff if the fact that my mind is open to greater possibility causes you to believe I do not know the difference between fact or fiction. What you said does not correspond to what I said at all. Of course we could classify whatever animal you present, however my point was that there may be morelaws governing the existance of that animal than we are aware of. Please stop skewing my statements so that you can attack straw men, you seem to do this often.

Buffman

(You appear to have difficulty knowing to whom you are addressing your posts. )

Rather than attempting to run for the cover of insults, disclaimers and self-aggrandizement, just try to answer the questions please. It you can't, please just say so.

Your point is not a new one. It has been offered many times before, and far more deftly, by apologists for the supernatural. Those of the Intelligent Design, religious creationist school, infer very much the same thing that you are attempting to sell...the God of the Gaps. The unknown is exactly that and no more. Stop guessing unless you have some verifiable evidence to present. The only straw man I see is the one you have created in an attempt to validate the possibility of a supernatural explanation of life and the universe.

Worldtraveller

First off, his name is Buffman, not Biff. Second of all, unless you are extremely thin skinned, the point (I think) is not that he is bashing you personally, but simply showing the inconsistency in your argument.

You are committing a common error here and equating the message to the person. I disagree with what you say (mostly), but that does not automatically mean that I dislike you as a person. While this dichotomy is difficult for many religionists to understand (and I understand why, that is how many are told to believe and live thier lives) it is nontheless prevalent, in my experience both on these boards, and in the real world.

Not being able to disprove god does not mean that the default position should be to believe. Otherwise, there would not be such a beast as monotheism. You either have to believe in them all (they can't be disproved) or you can not believe in any. Those are the only really consistent views. You may have heard this particular phrase before, but most of us who refer to ourselves as atheists are really only atheistic with respect to one more god than xians, muslims, etc.

As Buffman so accurately points out, how do you know that it is the god of the bible that makes you 'feel' a divine presence? Maybe it's Zeus, maybe it's Thor, Odin, or Cthulhu. You can not disprove the existance of any of those gods, so you have to, by your argument, leave open the possibility of thier existence, no?
Exactly, you are beginning to see the light here. This is the precise position most scientists take WRT the natural world/universe/whatever. We don't know, but we are going to look and see if we can figure out how it works. That is pretty much how science works. (In a nutshell)
So rather than saying 'goddidit' and moving on, which gives us absolutely zero information of any use, a scientist will either ask 'how does god do this' (theistic evolutionist, for example) or 'how does this phenomenon occur?' (naturalistc science).

Cheers,
Lane

Biff the unclean

Oh Boo Hoo, my heart bleeds for you.

The options are still open.
All you have to do is to produce God and we will all stop being Atheists.
After all you have produced absolutely no God whatsoever and we believe that, don't we? Just produce one or two Gods and we will believe that also.

You apparently have no understanding of what the Atheist stance is.
Why is it that you won't say what your "own reasons" are? I suspect that you will not because you already know that they won't stand up under scrutiny.

But you don't try to see. You do not strive to grasp a blessed thing. Instead you reject what is actually known and cling desperately to a Bronze Age myth instead.
Stop pretending that you are open to knowledge while you are promoting ignorance.

Newton Joseph

[QUOTE=Secular Elation]One question I have heard of theists is, "If God does not exist, how did the universe get created?"


Let's keep it simple!


WE ARE ALL INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS
By New10.
It is understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a house, creating a new business, creating a computer program or a blue print are all actions of an intelligent designer. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford or Thomas Edison would be classified intelligent designers. Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own EXPERIENCE onto a blank screen which they call "God", the intelligent designer.

coming soon

:devil1: