So to categorically say, there is not a creator is to assume that whatever lies in growth or its opposite is not a creator, and yet scientifically, we were unable to prove that. — Antidote
infinite regression.... — Nobeernolife
who created the creator? A super-creator? And who created that one? — Nobeernolife
You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. — Antidote
I don't think it's possible to prove that there is no creator. Or god, or whatever you want to call it.
Proof either way by empirical methods is impossible, and by a priori methods is also impossible.
At least this is what I heard. Don't quote me on this, please. — god must be atheist
Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess — Frank Apisa
acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess — Frank Apisa
You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do. — Antidote
the burden should not be to prove a negative — Nobeernolife
our default assumption should be that there are — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
307
You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do.
— Antidote
No, the burden should not be to prove a negative. How do you come up with this stuff? — Nobeernolife
Antidote
78
Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess
— Frank Apisa
If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite".
As you rightly say, we have to be careful we don't want to fall into error here.
acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess
— Frank Apisa
As stated above, unless your interpretation of "guess" is different from mine. I would say, in the absence of sufficient fact, a "guess" is offered as a "possibility". But you can clearly see, we didn't do that. We were very careful. Please do pull it to pieces if possible, it will help us all. But if you, do, please keep within the rules and within the example so we can all see, and not fall into error of clever misunderstandings or assumptions. — Antidote
THAT IS A POSITIVE ASSERTION ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT. — Frank Apisa
IF you are asserting that is not so...YOU ARE WRONG. — Frank Apisa
If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite". — Anti
the word "IF" — Frank Apisa
This "using reason" — Frank Apisa
As for "it would be in growth or its opposite" I truly do not understand what that means — Frank Apisa
As you saw, we didn't positively assert anything, because we already identified the flaw if we did so. There is not positive assertion of "a creator does exist", only a positive assertion that "we couldn't prove a creator doesn't exist". If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption and therefore in error. — Antidote
Would be interesting to meet some people like that... I never had that experience. Where I live people are generally happy with "there are things we don´t know", so that situation never comes up.Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? — Antidote
As I said before, introducing a "creator" does not answer any question. I am curious why as a scientist you do not see that.I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved. — Antidote
Been trying to explain exactly that to Frank Apisa for a whole string of messages now, but it is like talking to a wall.... — Nobeernolife
happy with "there are things we don't know" — Nobeernolife
introducing a "creator" does not answer any question — Nobeernolife
Antidote
83
Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? What is the impact on mankind as a whole as all those people who asserted such falseness? If there is a creator, the creator is not going to be best pleased about all that. If you were the creator, how would you feel about that?
You see, responsibility is part and parcel of your actions, so you are responsible for your part in the destruction of the faith. Imagine you convinced someone who had faith that your non sense was true, and as a result of that, they then gave up their faith. I believe it was written, "it would have been better for them if they had not been born." But, if there is a creator, it is acknowledged that such things happen (such is infinite love), and repentance and acknowledgement of such things may undo your damage, well if you were listen to the written record on faith that is.
But of course, your in a bit of a quandary now, because not only have you made an error on "creator DOES NOT exist", you have also denied the only thing that is capable of saving you - faith. Unless of course you do have faith, and the atheist stand is something else?
I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved. — Antidote
I have never said that a blind guess that there is at least one god...or that there are no gods... — Frank Apisa
IF...please note thatIF you are asserting either is an error...that assertion is just a guess. — Frank Apisa
and one almost certainly IS CORRECT. — Frank Apisa
Look at both your statements here, they are really saying the same thing aren't they? So I certainly do see it. — Antidote
YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"
Never in million years. Make that a billion years. — Frank Apisa
They are not contradicting each other, — Nobeernolife
Nobeernolife
313
YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"
Never in million years. Make that a billion years.
— Frank Apisa
As I said, I can not help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems, so please stop trying to argue. — Nobeernolife
I do not know if gods exist or not; — Frank Apisa
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible; — Frank Apisa
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa
...so I don't. — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.