- 28,497
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
When discussing a deity, that is agnosticism.
But in the sentence you quoted, TM was talking generally. There are things we don't understand. Could be God, could be why women go for bad boys.
When discussing a deity, that is agnosticism.
dylansanAnd as has been pointed out many times, one can be agnostic and atheist, and many are.
There is only two possible paths... Chuckeist or Chucknostic, all others will be rochamboe'd by Chuck :roundhouse:
That's great, how can anyone deny the Chuck.
Who made the creator?
Niky wrote-
What gives you the idea that if there is a God, or prime mover, you'll be able to understand it? That is like... super faith.
Numbers are immaterial. Numbers don't create things, they describe things. They Once you've explained to us how something immaterial can create something material, then maybe your analogy would make sense.The concept of infinity exists as a mathematical concept, so to say that God could not exist infinitely is picking and choosing.
The concept of infinity exists as a mathematical concept, so to say that God could not exist infinitely is picking and choosing.
Then Tank's insistence that the universe could not be infinite is equally "picking and choosing?"
Numbers are immaterial. Numbers don't create things, they describe things. They Once you've explained to us how something immaterial can create something material, then maybe your analogy would make sense.
Why does God's infinite quality have to be applied to the age of the universe also? If God created the universe, then the universe is 'younger' than God.
This also applies to things for which there is absolutely no evidence, subjective or not. Just because there is no evidence does not prove something doesn't exist."Subjective" evidence, is evidence nonetheless. You just choose not to address it. Just because you choose not to, has no bearing on whether or not you are mistaken for not doing so.
Because of the word that I underlined. Until there's any evidence that god exists, then we're going too far to assume that he plays by different rules than everything else.
If one thing (god) can be infinite, then all things (the universe) can as well. If one thing (the universe) cannot be infinite, then everything else (god) also cannot be. You're all just arbitrarily picking and choosing when rules apply and when they don't to justify your belief in something that has no basis in fact.
You're not lumping me in whith 'you're all just...'' are you? Either way, I've said something about this infinite deal before. If you'd like it's in post 3193 and more or less agree's with your 1st statment on infitite . Sorry for not linking it, damn posting on ps3
So we came from monkeys aye?
"Subjective" evidence, is evidence nonetheless. You just choose not to address it. Just because you choose not to, has no bearing on whether or not you are mistaken for not doing so.
The fact that there are so many religions, and have been so many more representation of Gods in the past, suggests that even if people feel like there is some higher power, the chances of it being the Christian God are fairly slim - and certainly not verifiable enough to conclude that all human beings live under the Christian God's rule, which is simply arrogant.
Not arrogant, it's just a logical conclusion from the fact that you BELIEVE in the God that Christ spoke of.
*snip* To this end, I have more respect for people who might have changed their religions (through free will - not force) in the past when they discovered that there was other stuff beyond the walls of the belief they grew up with.
It's entirely up to you and whatever makes you happy, and as long as that doesn't interfere or obstruct what makes someone else happy, then all the best to you.
@homeforsummer There are many more contributions to what religion a person believes in than the religion of their parents.
That's the important thing, of course.
@homeforsummer There are many more contributions to what religion a person believes in than the religion of their parents.
OK, that's true, but do you (or anyone else ) think it is worth spending time explaining that when a person attributes God with anything then they stop critically thinking and, therefore, the imagination, the most powerful intrinsic tool, is not utilized? I suppose one could attribute something to God and try to prove it, but it would probably more difficult being unbiased then.
Just imagine if every time a question came up we just gave God credit for the answer. I'm not judging anything regarding spirituality, but I believe in staying curious. Look where that attitude got Alice.