you're probably right, but I fear people who believe in absolutes.
Wouldn't that apply just as much to athiests as it would to religous people as, to put in scientific terms, one could equate god to simply a fourth or fifth dimensional that seems to have a personal stake in humanities development similar to an antkeeper taking care of a colony. This wouldn't be that far outside of the realm of possibilty as it already seems likely that their are other dimersions we cannot knowingly interact with and it isn't hard to persume that such dimensions would also develop life of their own.
Not known so not believed in. You forget religionists believe without evidence, scientists only believe with evidence.
Okay well start with not known so not believed in doesn't align with science at all. There are a ton of ideas or theories in science there aren't definitively known, but rather that evidence points towards. Not only that but I would argue very few religious people believe without evidence. It is simply not evidence with which you agree with. It's no different than how they used to believe that the Earth was flat or that the sun orbited around the Earth. These were all beliefs based in evidence that were later proven wrong. And all too common to say in this thread a higher power will probably never be disproven nor will it ever be proven. Personally I believe as long as it makes you a better person in whatever context that may be in then go right on ahead and believe that.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
So it’s either from a mind or by accident? Couldn’t it be just the way it is? Your like the puddle who thinks the hole is so perfect for it there must be a puddle god.
True. Either it’s moral because God says it or God says it because it’s moral.
by the way why do you philosophy is any different than religion? The results are the same, both can´t absolute definitions about life, there is nothing absolutely right or wrong in philosophy whereas in biology, physics, or chemistry there are answers that are wrong. In philosophy an answer is more or less plausible depending on the way of argumentation. That´s like religion both start with certain assumptations about life you may or might not share. They
In philosophy there are fallacies like special spreading that religion violates constantly. Yet people keep believing it. Lazily.
But still are just theories. There are no absolute answers philosophy can give about life.
There’s a difference in not believing in god and believing no god exists.
So tell me: what is that difference?
The position of the negative attribution. “I DONT believe in god” is not a claim, it’s a response to the lack of evidence. “I believe NO god exists” is an actual claim that needs to be backed up with evidence. Same for the flip side. You believe in god and need to back it up with evidence.
I need to back up evidence for myself if I already believe in him.
We all have beliefs that aren’t backed by evidence. But god is the only one we choose to keep once discovering there’s no evidence.
Maybe because enough people realize they don't need evidence in order to believe in him.
Do you believe in anything else without evidence? No. Because that’s stupid.
How can God be shown in created evidence when he is uncreated?
@CarneConChile how do you know he’s uncreated?
What are you asking? Are you trying to say he must certainly be created? An image made by man to put his understanding into a framework?
@CarneConChile You made a claim that God is uncreated. I'm simply asking how you know.
What does it mean to know? If I made the claim he is uncreated then we must think abstractly in order to get close to understanding. If you are unwilling to do that then tell me how can you live a meaningful life? If you have no proof ( but live to embrace it (most avoid)) then you must be IN nhilism, which is destroyed by reason.
@CarneConChile Its always abstract talk and no evidence. You have no reason to believe in a god, much less he's uncreated. You're treading water in the pool of logic.
the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. What physical evidence could there be?"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."
@CarneConChile Actually absence can be evidence if you make a claim and can't back it up. I say I have a trillion dollar bill in my wallet. If I can't show you, that's evidence.
Yes but there can be reasons you can't show me. Say there are some who would steal it without thought.
@CarneConChile Doesn’t matter. It’s absence is still evidence.
People who know with absolute certainty but then have evidence to back it up. Then push their beliefs on others.
Seems like believing in an absolute being stops all other learning about the universe. Just say “god did it.”
Where do you get that idea?
From religionists who know nothing about the universe.
You've actually heard them say that?
the polls seem to show that.
Which polls are you talking about?
Pew poll of evolution and beginning of the universe. The uneducated and religious are in lock step, unsurprisingly...www.pewresearch.org/.../