Fair point. However, I feel I should add that it's reasonable not to believe in something for which absolutely no evidence exists, but not so reasonable to believe in something for which absolutely no evidence exists. Saying "I believe in God" has exactly the same validity as saying "I believe the world is being run by magical purple mind control unicorns".
Absolutely no evidence is a silly way to phrase it. Saying "I don't believe in God" is the same as saying "I fully believe that humans can process and understand with ease all that is around them"
What we call a quark could easily be evidence to point towards any deity (save for personifications of them) being real. Just because the language used is foreign doesn't mean the point is moot.
(happy that I got so deep into science that I've broken past the barrier of atheism :D )
God may exist in some sense (i.e. a being that exists on a completely different scale both in time, complexity, and size), but if it does (and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is so) it has absolutely no relation to the personalized God claimed by any of the world's religions. God in the sense that any religious person believes does not exist, and for any who claim it does I absolutely challenge you to produce any evidence of that.
Ok, I thank you, I got a good laugh out of that. They're trying to use formal logic on english concepts without a clear definition. Everything past the first = sign is absolutely meaningless.
What part would you like me to respond to? I read a few comments into each section, there's a few things I haven't seen before, but I believe I can argue it competently.
view the rest of the comments →
rodental ago
God exists exactly as much as Satan: not at all.
Touchdown50 ago
Your wrong. They both exist.
rodental ago
Gonna have to see some proof for that claim.
sleepingbeautycan ago
Right after you prove your claim
rodental ago
Fair point. However, I feel I should add that it's reasonable not to believe in something for which absolutely no evidence exists, but not so reasonable to believe in something for which absolutely no evidence exists. Saying "I believe in God" has exactly the same validity as saying "I believe the world is being run by magical purple mind control unicorns".
n0etics ago
Absolutely no evidence is a silly way to phrase it. Saying "I don't believe in God" is the same as saying "I fully believe that humans can process and understand with ease all that is around them"
What we call a quark could easily be evidence to point towards any deity (save for personifications of them) being real. Just because the language used is foreign doesn't mean the point is moot.
(happy that I got so deep into science that I've broken past the barrier of atheism :D )
rodental ago
God may exist in some sense (i.e. a being that exists on a completely different scale both in time, complexity, and size), but if it does (and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is so) it has absolutely no relation to the personalized God claimed by any of the world's religions. God in the sense that any religious person believes does not exist, and for any who claim it does I absolutely challenge you to produce any evidence of that.
n0etics ago
You're use of the word evidence should be further explained. Is this evidence you seek something you can see and touch?
rodental ago
Yes. Show me some data that shows the existence of God, then show me the reproducible method you used to obtain that data.
Antiracist2 ago
Take it to v/theology, sucka.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
https://voat.co/v/Theology/comments/1254796
rodental ago
Dude, I did a year of seminary, I seriously doubt there are any new arguments.
Antiracist2 ago
Then it should be easy to answer.
@SarMegahhikkitha, you know how many of these "one year of seminary" guys I encounter?
@bojangles @eagleshigh
I can tell by the things you've said already that you're noob at this, sry.
rodental ago
What should be easy to answer?
Antiracist2 ago
https://voat.co/v/Theology/comments/1254796
rodental ago
Ok, I thank you, I got a good laugh out of that. They're trying to use formal logic on english concepts without a clear definition. Everything past the first = sign is absolutely meaningless.
Antiracist2 ago
Ahahahaha.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
LOOK AT THIS GUY! LOOK!
@stretched_girl impersonation 8 out of 10. Great job.
rodental ago
Pleased to meet you too. If you ever have a question that actually has meaning give me a ring :)
Antiracist10 ago
Check out @rodental's dropping the utility/truth identity!
https://voat.co/v/Theology/comments/1227946
Just like in Part 7 of that debate with @Crensch.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
rodental ago
I appreciate the publicity, but could you stop spamming me please?
Antiracist10 ago
No. Go respond seriously to the thread I linked you instead of swinging your dick.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
rodental ago
Also, I'm reporting you for spamming me. Still willing to have a discussion though.
antiracist3 ago
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
@PUTTITOUT IS A FAGGOT!
rodental ago
What part would you like me to respond to? I read a few comments into each section, there's a few things I haven't seen before, but I believe I can argue it competently.
Antiracist10 ago
P1: C. (There exists some thing that is changed.)
P2: C→A. (If some thing changes, then that thing is changed by another.)
P3: A→(IvU). (If a thing is changed by another, then either there is an infinite regress of changed changers or there is an unchanged changer.)
P4: ~I. (An infinite regress of changed changers is impossible.)
WHICH ARE POSSIBLY NOT TRUE?
@SARMEGAHHIKKITHA @BOJANGLES @EAGLESHIGH