Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing. — DingoJones
Do you read these threads before shooting off your mouth? — Frank Apisa
It is an etymological construct that makes as much sense as supposing "abate" means without "bate" or "aardvark" meaning without "ardvark" or "abridge" meaning without a"bridge." — Frank Apisa
It couldn't happen, because the word "atheism" came into the English language BEFORE theism. — Frank Apisa
Anyone using the word "atheist" as a descriptor...HAS A BELIEF (or a guess) that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods." — Frank Apisa
Is science a part of philosophy? — Malice
Is science an entirely different method of seeking knowledge about the world? — Malice
You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics. — Gnomon
If the First Cause is prior-to and has the power to create a process of Natural Causation, it is by definition superior to Nature, hence "supernatural" — Gnomon
hypothesis is unanimously accepted by scientific experts, — Gnomon
As I asked before, what other logical options are you aware of? — Gnomon
Consider you are by yourself in the jungle. How would you survive by asking those questions? — 3017amen
In the context of JtB, the term "knowledge" is linked to the term "belief", i.e. knowledge is a particular type of belief. — alcontali
So the Big Bang theory "grants them" physical evidence of a super-natural creation event, that doesn't depend on Biblical support — Gnomon
What other options do you see to explain the BB besides — Gnomon
Check out my non-theistic thesis of Enformationism — Gnomon
I can see how the devil may be omnimalevolent but so far I haven't heard of the devil being defined as omnipotent. — TheMadFool
If they think God gave them a sign, the better explanation is that the brain is finding meaning where there is none. — Malice
The brain is hardwired to find connections between things, so much so, that it often leads to superstition. They've even found this behavior in pigeons. — Malice
I am not able to establish unshakable beliefs. Are you? — Monist
But that has no biological survival value. — 3017amen
In this context, if you are wondering, yet already have knowledge that denies same, then you must already possess metaphysical properties that allow you the sense of wonderment to begin with — 3017amen
do you accept the claim of an existent invisible bunny because you cannot refute that?
— CeleRate
No, but if someone really did believe this, I would severely doubt it on the grounds that it's most likely a delusion since that is far more likely. — Malice
I cannot prove or disprove it. I cannot prove or disprove it any more than I can prove or disprove that your invisible bunny Harry exists. — Malice
"cosmologist big bang instant" to see where scientists use the term "instant" in reference to the sudden beginning of the universe. — Gnomon
One sign of such reasoning is the negative response to the BB theory, which to most people looked like a creation event. — Gnomon
They have a "reason" for preferring a self-existent material world : it avoids the necessity for a self-existent immaterial Creator. — Gnomon
PS__The "Creator" I refer to is an abstraction based on logical inference, not a concrete entity known directly by revelation. It's the "god of the philosophers". — Gnomon
When you say "unverifiable", how are you differentiate it from "unfalsifiable"? — Malice
My conclusion is that atheists/agnostics - that is, those who simply claim not to believe in God - should argue their skepticism and stop fussing with "the true meaning of atheism" and "the burden of proof" — David Mo
I believe that the possibility of a creator agent is unfalsifiable — Malice
I would like to know why defining oneself as an atheist in one way or another favors belief in God. — David Mo
Descartes’ Cogito ergo sum — rikes
However, if you try to logically build on those truths to extend certainty any further, you will fail... after all, once you’ve proved something to yourself, how can you be sure that your memory that you just proved it is accurate? Were you completely rational? This universal skepticism leaves all further philosophical inquiry moot. — rikes
convinced astronomers that our world was created in an instant, — Gnomon
So, now the origin of the universe is an open question. — Gnomon
But the reason for accepting the notion of a seemingly magical creative act is that the preponderance of scientific evidence supports it. — Gnomon
So I think it's somewhat redundant to say our past selves determine our future selves. — NOS4A2
We are huge we can only traverse our body in segments, other, purer consciousness can sense all body in one. — Qwex
My reason to opt for yes, over no, is that there's a lot of strangeness(unknowingness, pure strangeness, super-massive nature, statistical anomalies); so, external to the universe, is probably not nothing, but, some kind of life. — Qwex
'What is pure strangeness?' Strange matter and force. — Qwex
The big bang was the beginning, the universe is at most offset in a multi-verse. — Qwex
Present you is partially conditioned by past you. — Pfhorrest
That wanting to want something is your will, and the effectiveness of that self-conditioning is the freedom of your will; freedom from the other influences that would condition you otherwise, your own self-conditioning prevailing over those other influences — Pfhorrest
Each of us determine the course of our own lives by the simple fact that nothing else does. — NOS4A2
agnostics do not want the descriptor "atheist" applied to them...nor to new born babies or toddlers.
Will you address that? — Frank Apisa
Is this an agnostic position?
Is this an atheistic position? — Frank Apisa
For people who do not deny that any gods exist...and who do not "believe" it is more likely that therer are no gods than that at least one does...the word agnostic is fine. — Frank Apisa
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence; — Frank Apisa
There are people here who insist that all babies, toddlers, and agnostics are "atheists" by dint of a definition that SOME dictionaries use...defining the word as someone lacking a 'belief' (in) any gods. — Frank Apisa
My opinion is that is absurd...a use of the word in a way that is much less useful than defining it as "a person who denies that any gods exist" or "a person who asserts it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does." — Frank Apisa
One: To the people who point to dictionaries on this issue, it should be noted that dictionaries do not truly define words. They tell us how they are most often used…at a particular period of time. — Frank Apisa