Wow, you claim a timeless immaterial being created the world and you want someone else to prove it’s impossible?
Nice.
Sure anyone can. That’s part of why myths persist. My family has it’s personal ghost stories doesn’t yours?
The fact that science is relatively new is part of my point. Getting more information to more average people is much younger than that. It will take time and effort to educate and replace wishful thinking with more critical thought. We have to choose what method is most effective.
Because it will take time and effort we have to decide how to approach it. IMHO I think we can approach specific beliefs with gradual success because of the information we have about those beliefs. By being persistent in presenting that information we will gradually create an atmosphere where more people question.
IMO it’s about valuing the truth over myth and recognizing how we are connected and how our actions and choices affect the larger us. It cracks me up how people who claim to value the truth are so unwilling to actually consider anything that challenges their world view. How do you know what the truth is if you’re not willing to seek it, and at least listen and consider other information and views.
But I digress. I think by deciding which myths to focus on we stand a better chance of progress. This goes hand in hand with recognizing the limits of our knowledge and recognizing that every belief system , even the more rational ones, are subject to change. We can’t demonstrate that god doesn’t exist or that nothing exists beyond this mortal life with certainty so let’s acknowledge that we don’t know , claim our right to our own belief system and allow others the same privilege. Focus on other details of belief to encourage reasoning and the importance of embracing the truth.
Sure, but we don’t have a panel that gets to declare exactly what is a gauche thought and what isn’t, nor should we. You and I don’t know what the right path is for anyone else in their emotional and intellectual development. IMO we allow people to choose their path and address their actions and belief systems, as they affect the society they share. In the process of doing that we automatically encourage sound reasoning and the consideration of facts.
In other words:
When I provide some evidence for my claim, it’s insufficient.
When Czarcasm provides no evidence for his claim, it’s sufficient.
Let me explain the circular reasoning of your logic.
Me: Hey, I am inclined to believe that an immaterial deity designed and created the universe, let me lay out clearly what I think is the evidence.
Czarcasm: The problem with this scenario, Kelly, is that existence outside of space and time is impossible.
Me: Really? How so?
Czarcasm: The burden of proof lies with you.
Me: Lies with me how? If the problem with my reasoning is that existence outside of space and time is impossible, then just show the evidence that such existence is impossible.
Czarcasm: Nope.
Random Contributor: Hey Kelly, show some evidence already!
Me: Huh? I did. I laid it out clearly, go and read it. We’re passed that point, we’re up to the bit where Czarcasm offered his rebuttal. Unfortunately his rebuttal was merely an unbacked assertion, so I’m just asking him to show the evidence for his claim, otherwise, it’s not really a rebuttal at all.
Random Contributor: It’s up to you show the evidence, Kelly!
ad infinitum.
You haven’t provided any evidence for your claim, simply an argument from ignorance.
: sigh :
“And I say it wasn’t an argument from ignorance”.
I say we introduce a new rule in to GD: No unbacked assertions allowed. Three strikes and your banned policy.
I don’t think that would play out the way you think it would.
Your evidence for a designer stems from your belief that certain structures “look” designed “to you”. This stems from your ignorance of the processes by which these structures came to be. Therefore your argument for a designer is an argument from ignorance.
You’d be long banned by that rule since unbacked assertion after unbacked assertion is all you have. You’d probably have been banned in your first post by that standard.
In fact, that seems to be what passes for your argument; “I don’t understand anything, I don’t have evidence for anything, therefore God!”
Space-Where things are
Time-When things are
Immaterial-Ain’t nothing there
Entity-Is something there
Immaterial Entity existing outside Space/Time-Something that isn’t there that doesn’t exist at any time any where.
I have backed up my claims in post # 404 and post #469, so I will thank you to stop saying this.
Please explain how atoms “came to be”.
Please explain how energy “came to be”.
I’m describing a timeless entity, so this is irrelevant.
Oh, there’s plenty of immaterial things that exist. You could even think of some of those things yourself.
Uhh, yes.
Oops! You nearly got there, but you goofed on the “immaterial” part.
Have you ever heard the phrase, Absence of Evidence isn’t Evidence of Absence?
If by that you mean “You laid out very clearly why you believe what you do, and Czarcasm’s rebuttal was to offer a mere unbacked assertion. We’re all still waiting for Czarcasm to actually back it up with something”, then yes, unbacked assertion after unbacked assertion is all I have.
So you’re ignorant about how atoms and energy came to be?
Is the answer you’re looking for, I don’t yet know therefore God did it?
He doesn’t have to. Claiming someone is making an argument from ignorance doesn’t mean the claimant has the answers. It does mean that he shouldn’t make one up, and he hasn’t. You have.
Atoms and energy look designed to me. What, exactly, have I “made up”?
[Joe Pesci voice]
I would love to hear this!
[/Joe Pesci voice]
You don’t understand the process by which they came to be so you infer they are designed. This is a pure, unfiltered argument from ignorance.