Toribash
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Although personally Im agnostic, I feel youre overlooking what many christians believe; that the bible is not literal in its stories and teachings, creating the world in 6 days is the most commonly used example for this - what is a day to god?

SmallBowl is completely right. Look what bible says about it:

2 Peter 3 - 8 But, my loved ones, keep in mind this one thing, that with the Lord one day is the same as a thousand years, and a thousand years are no more than one day.
Factory. Sometimes sleeping.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Although personally Im agnostic, I feel you're overlooking what many christians believe; that the bible is not literal in its stories and teachings, creating the world in 6 days is the most commonly used example for this - what is a day to god?

I think christianity is such a widespread religion that people feel the need to defend it because its so excepted so it MUST have some ground, but I feel like they're so many different relgions and each one goes in and out of style (for example: The Greek and Roman Gods used to be the widespread excepted religion) and each one is based off a innate need to explain the explainable. I believe religion has become more of a guidance tool and a way of understanding ones self by fabricating a higher being.

ALSO

Its interesting how you guys constantly point out my small amount evidence that god doesn't exist yet you provide no evidence for your argument: that god may exist.
Originally Posted by Veoo View Post
I think christianity is such a widespread religion that people feel the need to defend it because its so excepted so it MUST have some ground, but I feel like they're so many different relgions and each one goes in and out of style (for example: The Greek and Roman Gods used to be the widespread excepted religion) and each one is based off a innate need to explain the explainable. I believe religion has become more of a guidance tool and a way of understanding ones self by fabricating a higher being.

ALSO

Its interesting how you guys constantly point out my small amount evidence that god doesn't exist yet you provide no evidence for your argument: that god may exist.

Who exactly do you mean by "you guys"? The first thing I said is that Im agnostic this means Im not a follower of any religion, but I dont strongly disbelieve in it either.

The inexplicable could be viewed as evidence for the existence of religion. However, whether its true or not, if the lessons and teachings taken are positive from the religion - could it be seen as a reason to live and a life to live by even if it is fabricated?
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post

The inexplicable could be viewed as evidence for the existence of religion.

What on earth does sentence even mean?
If you mean religion as god, no. Just because something is yet to be explained doesn't mean it's evidence towards god. That's ludicrous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance This is called the evidence of absence fallacy or argument from ignorance.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post

However, whether its true or not, if the lessons and teachings taken are positive from the religion - could it be seen as a reason to live and a life to live by even if it is fabricated?

So a person has made himself a set of rules and ideals to live by and considers that his reason for living. That is not a religion specific situation, that is pretty much how all people live their lives.
If religion is fabricated then it should hold no special powers over any other set of ideals and rules.

What you are saying is that "People make their own reason for living". I don't mind that, but it's just a bit of a redundant statement with no real value.
Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 18, 2017 at 06:49 PM.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
What on earth does sentence even mean?

The way science works is providing explanations to phenomena, the explanation that makes the least assumptions and explains the phenomenon best is the one that is considered most likely to be true.

There is not another theory as far as I am aware to why the big bang occurred, therefore a deity could be seen as a potential explanation to this - perhaps an explanation with less assumptions that is more likely that other explanations, so this is evidence (obviously not proof but evidence nonetheless) that this could be the case.


Originally Posted by cowmeat
So a person has made himself a set of rules and ideals to live by and considers that his reason for living. That is not a religion specific situation, that is pretty much how all people live their lives.
If religion is fabricated then it should hold no special powers over any other set of ideals and rules.

What you are saying is that "People make their own reason for living". I don't mind that, but it's just a bit of a redundant statement with no real value.

Im not sure that is how everyone lives their life, but yes people living by their own values, rules and ideals and seeing it as a reason to live is the gist of what I was saying.

Its not quite the same as making their own reason for living though as they have not invented it - whether someone else invented it or whether it is true is not entirely relevant to this discussion, but either way its not the same as them inventing it themselves
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
The way science works is providing explanations to phenomena, the explanation that makes the least assumptions and explains the phenomenon best is the one that is considered most likely to be true.

There is not another theory as far as I am aware to why the big bang occurred, therefore a deity could be seen as a potential explanation to this - perhaps an explanation with less assumptions that is more likely that other explanations, so this is evidence (obviously not proof but evidence nonetheless) that this could be the case.




This is just a pure logical fallacy. Look at my edited post above.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post



I'm not sure that is how everyone lives their life, but yes people living by their own values, rules and ideals and seeing it as a reason to live is the gist of what I was saying.

Its not quite the same as making their own reason for living though as they have not invented it - whether someone else invented it or whether it is true is not entirely relevant to this discussion, but either way its not the same as them inventing it themselves

"People make their own reason for living, or take it from others" Now there you go. Fixed it for you by adding nothing of worth.

You are just nitpicking the semantics of the statement with no real value. Which you even are saying yourself, why even make this argument.
Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 18, 2017 at 06:50 PM.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
This is just a pure logical fallacy. Look at my edited post above.

No, thats why I was deliberately clear in calling it evidence rather than proof.

The fallacy you linked is this:
  • If a proposition has not been disproved, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
  • If a proposition has not been proved, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

I was careful in saying it was not definitely true. Evidence != Conclusive proof, and does not mean "you must believe this".


Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

What I have mentioned could be used to support the assertion that a deity exists, but certainly does not prove it

"People make their own reason for living, or take it from others" Now there you go. Fixed it for you by adding nothing of worth.

You are just nitpicking the semantics of the statement with no real value. Which you even are saying yourself, why even make this argument.

In this case I think the semantics was important, the change in meaning in the statement does make a big difference in this case, imo.

Also I cant see this particular topic not involving the discussion of semantics because nothing is proven, provable or the opposite.
Last edited by SmallBowl; Mar 18, 2017 at 07:01 PM.
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Trying to backtrack on statements

First of all, good job picking the wrong parts of the page I linked, but besides that, let's look at your logic.



"Evidence refers to information or facts that help us to establish the truth or existence of something."

Evidence (in this context) cannot be a maybe, evidence cannot be subjective, evidence should be factual. In this way it does not differ from proof.
Evidence is used to establish proof, so it cannot be just "we don't know of better explanations"




Your logic leads to this:

Someone commited a crime
Someone says Person X is guilty.
There is no conclusive proof for Person X doing the crime.


WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TOWARDS ANYTHING ELSE.

Now let's do the same with what you're saying

something "created" the universe
Someone says god created it
There is no conclusive proof for god creating it


WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF GOD CREATING THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TOWARDS ANYTHING ELSE.

You see why you're simply irrefutably just plain wrong?



You are basing your whole statement on a logical fallacy and then refusing to back out on it. No point in having a conversation with someone like you.
Last edited by cowmeat; Mar 18, 2017 at 07:17 PM.
Let me return to this before continuing - I am agnostic, I am not a follower of any religion. There has been no backtracking, what I said is evidence of a deity - I have also said all along that evidence != absolute proof.

Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
First of all, good job picking the wrong parts of the page I linked, but besides that, let's look at your logic.

Im not sure what you wanted me to pick up on, I took the definition of the fallacy you quoted and showed how it did not apply. The important thing is that I am not dealing with definites.



"Evidence refers to information or facts that help us to establish the truth or existence of something."

Evidence (in this context) cannot be a maybe, evidence cannot be subjective, evidence should be factual. In this way it does not differ from proof.
Evidence is used to establish proof, so it cannot be just "we don't know of better explanations"

The information I gave is being used to attempt to establish the truth or existence of something.

The evidence I gave is factual, we do not know of an explanation to the causation of the big bang. It does not differ from proof in this way, but does differ from proof in being conclusive. This is what I have been saying from the start, quite clearly.

It is used to help establish proof, it on its own is not a proof.




Your logic leads to this:

Someone commited a crime
Someone says Person X is guilty.
There is no conclusive proof for Person X doing the crime.


WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TOWARDS ANYTHING ELSE.

No, since we have no proof or leads showing anyone else has the possibility of person X doing the crime cannot be ruled out. However person X is of course innocent until proven guilty and in a court of law should and would be deemed innocent.

Note proven in place of 1 piece of evidence existing suggesting he may have done the crime.

Now let's do the same with what you're saying

something "created" the universe
Someone says god created it
There is no conclusive proof for god creating it


WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF GOD CREATING THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF TOWARDS ANYTHING ELSE.

You see why you're simply irrefutably just plain wrong?

No, since we have no other ideas of how it was caused without drawing more assumptions it is possible that this is the solution we should accept. This is not proof of the universe but it is a form of evidence yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor



You are basing your whole statement on a logical fallacy and then refusing to back out on it. No point in having a conversation with someone like you.

You have misunderstood the logical fallacy you linked. It specifically only deals with absolutes, we are not dealing with any absolutes and I am being very clear on that
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.
Originally Posted by cowmeat View Post
How are you so god damn dense that you do not understand this simple sentence.


THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE TOWARDS SOMETHING ELSE

And with this, I am done with you.

An unexplained phenomenon is definitely evidence towards an unestablished explanation existing.

Unexplained phenomenon in this case: The big bang
Given explanation with least assumptions given that either of us knows of: Existence of a Deity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

This is evidence towards a Deity, everything happens for a reason and outside the realm of quantum mechanics the same input will give the same output, that is core to science. So what input do you suggest there was leading to the big bang, making less assumptions than has been made in this explanation?




Note: Evidence != Conclusive proof that you should believe in above everything else.

You misunderstand what evidence is.
Don't dm me pictures of bowls that you find attractive.