There is no evidence that god doesn't exist

SkepticalOne wrote:

It's not an argument from popularity, it's simply a matter of thinking that the default state would be the state that humanity has always been found in

Except that humanity includes non-belief.

I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.

If you were thinking the default state is a matter of the "a priori" state, the state of a person as they are born, then I think you are still wrong, that would be agnosticism, wouldn't it?

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category?  

I think it hinders rational discussion when you just make up your own definition of words, I’m sure you will disagree, but I think rational discussion requires people to be speaking the same language. But then again, I think hindering rational discussion is the whole point of puerile contrarianism, which is why I think it’s pointless

Cognitive scientists generally concur that our brains are biologically hardwired to develop spirituality and supernatural beliefs, so maybe that is the default state..

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.

I also think context is important to rational discussion.

The unspoken and unproven premise of innate beliefs doesnt sidestep this fallacy.

FYI, I'm not a Christian, at least most Christians tell me that, so you don't really have to have the same visceral reaction to everything I say, your emotions are not conducive to rational discussion.

I don't know who it was that made you so angry with Christianity, but I know it wasn't me.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.

FLRW wrote:

Ok,ok, Stephen Hawking didn't think that way.

Allow me to explain the difference between doesn't and didn't; doesn't is current tense, didn't is past tense.

I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.

Given that up to a quarter of humanity are religiously unaffiliated and up to 10% of humanity have no spiritual beliefs, it's not a small thing to gloss over when characterizing humanity.

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category? 

Except this is not a novel definition. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge rather than a statement of belief. The word itself is derived from greek 'a' and 'gnosis' meaning 'without knowledge'. Ie. agnosticism isnt a third position, it is in a category on its own.

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.

The context is you claiming human cultures 'always' having a spiritual component means humanity has a built-in spiritual element. I am arguing against this in two ways:

1. large groups of humans dont subscribe to the religion or the supernatural.

2. The desire to fit in and the impact a social group can have on personal views should not be overlooked, especially when attempting to describe an epistimological snapshot of the human brain a priori.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.

SkepticalOne wrote:

I think you could characterize humanity as an animal that uses language, and I suppose a puerile contrarian would say “Except that humanity includes people that can’t talk”, but it would just be pointless.

Given that up to a quarter of humanity are religiously unaffiliated and up to 10% of humanity have no spiritual beliefs, it's not a small thing to gloss over when characterizing humanity.

OK, OK, my bad, I said “vast majority” when it’s only 90%, I’m sorry I upset you.

In my view, agnosticism isnt distinct from belief or non-belief. There can be agnosticism on either side of the belief divide.

Well that's certainly a novel definition, I wonder why it’s a word in the first place then. If there are only two categories, why even name a third category? 

Except this is not a novel definition. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge rather than a statement of belief. The word itself is derived from greek 'a' and 'gnosis' meaning 'without knowledge'. Ie. agnosticism isnt a third position, it is in a category on its own.

OK, so you are saying atheism is a statement of belief. 

Humans are predisposed to believe, but that is not the same thing as innate belief.

You seem to want to make this conversation all about words, do you even remember what it is supposed to be about? If you do, that would be what we call context.

The context is you claiming human cultures 'always' having a spiritual component means humanity has a built-in spiritual element. I am arguing against this in two ways:

Yeah, except for that’s not what I said. 

Let’s debate the difference between “innate”, “predisposed”, and “built-in” now.

1. large groups of humans dont subscribe to the religion or the supernatural.

2. The desire to fit in and the impact a social group can have on personal views should not be overlooked, especially when attempting to describe an epistimological snapshot of the human brain a priori.

You can’t say humans have eyesight because there are blind people

You can’t say people have two legs because there are people with one leg

You can’t say the sky is blue because there’s that whole nighttime thing.

You can’t say epistemological is spelled that way because there are people who spell it epistimological.

You can’t say SkepticalOne is a puerile contrarian because, hmmm, well, OK, you can say SkepticalOne is a puerile contrarian.

I'll just point out, Christianity is not mentioned in what you are replying to, AND neither of our religious views are relevant to this conversation. This is a distraction for you.

OK, so you don’t get the whole context thing, got it.

OK, OK, my bad, I said “vast majority” when it’s only 90%, I’m sorry I upset you.

So which is it, an appeal to the nature of humanity (excluding a significant portion of humans) or an fallacious appeal to popularity?

OK, so you are saying atheism is a statement of belief.

Atheism is a statement regarding belief. Theism is a statement of belief.

You can’t say humans have eyesight because there are blind people

You can’t say people have two legs because there are people with one leg

The portion of humanity that doesnt subscribe to supernatural is 20 times the portion that can't see. 1250 times more than people missing limbs. These are not comparable.

10% is a significant chunk of humanity. All people over the age of 65 make up 10% of humanity. Characterizing humanity while excluding such a large demographic undeniably skews the picture being painted.

Jesus is proof that God exists. The miracles he performed and his resurrection adds further evidence the super natural evidence in his existence.

Good to see you back debby

I am here to defend my faith. Good to be back. Thank you.

Debby wrote:

Jesus is proof that God exists. The miracles he performed and his resurrection adds further evidence the super natural evidence in his existence.

Claims =/= evidence. Nice try.

A baby born without eyes is diagnosed with anophthalmia. It occurs when the eye tissue and optic nerves fail to develop in the womb, most commonly due to genetic mutations, chromosomal abnormalities, or prenatal factors. I guess this shows that God is not all powerful.

God created the universe in 6 days. That feat has never been replicated.

Debby wrote:

God created the universe in 6 days. That feat has never been replicated.

Pro tip: not everything taught in Sunday School is true.

It's actually called Poor Design. That is why God is in God Prison.

SatanLucy wrote:

"not everything taught in Sunday School is true. "

Unproved claim.

Science and history have shown many simplistic lessons taught in SS are demonstrably false.

So, who created GOD, and where was he living pre-universe?

Others would have it that all potential was initiated in a moment, and that GOD is the stuff of minds.

And that it took a tad longer than 6 days for minds to develop.

And yes, Sunday Scholl had a lot to answer for.

Though I never complained about the chocolate eggs and christmas presents.

Debby wrote:

I am here to defend my faith. Good to be back. Thank you.

Why does it need defense?

It needs to be protected from falsehood and distortion.

Debby wrote:

It needs to be protected from falsehood and distortion.

Ahh, I see. So you're like Christian Internal Affairs? ...the religious 'CIA', if you will

I wonder why the all powerful, all knowing entity on team God doesnt handle that? 🤔🤔

Christians are offered different gifts, like gift of healing, gift of knowledge, gift of interpretation etc. They all serve differently based on their given gift.

Christians are offered different gifts, like gift of healing, gift of knowledge, gift of interpretation etc. They all serve differently based on their given gift.

Im not sure how this relates to my post. Why would a being capable of creating all that is need finite beings to defend against other finite beings?

Because the evil outnumber the good. More helping hands is needed.

Debby wrote:

Because the evil outnumber the good. More helping hands is needed.

A being with unlimited power shouldn't need help, though, right?

God needs help especially when the prophets he sends are killed.

Debby wrote:

God needs help especially when the prophets he sends are killed.

You are describing a god with limited power. If that is the deity you defend, then I understand your motivation.

God isn’t here to clean up your mess. He has both heaven and earth to manage.

Debby wrote:

God isn’t here to clean up your mess.

❤️ Agreed! Less thoughts and prayers and more personal accountability and action!

Success will determine the balance.