About this user
when discussing god i will not accept these arguments:
-first cause argument
-begs the question (circular arguments, even though it MIGHT be true it is not falsifiable)
-"theory" of evolution (though this is a good one to debate for educations sake)
-disprove god exists
-mixing abiogenesis with cosmology
1 first cause argument_____________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU - carl sagan puts it quite eloquently and succinctly
the other reason is that it is going into the realms of fallacy because it is making assumptions before the evidence.
let me put it this way, if you find a rock on a beach you can ask yourself 2 useful questions on its origin
1) how did it get here
2) who put this here
question 1 is useful, you aren't making any assumptions (except that the rock is here, but that's another kettle of fish) but the answers you get from asking further honest questions are satisfying and truthful. It may be the tides brought it in, it could be thrust up from the earth or a person could have put it there
question 2 is making an assumption before you have answered any questions. which means you are discrediting evidence before it is presented ( in this case the tides or the earth)
if you apply this logic to the first cause argument you can see why it doesn't hold up.
we can observe all the way back to milliseconds after the big bang, anything before that is not observable and therefore any comment that is offered on it is PURE SPECULATION not THE TRUTH
2 evolution is just a theory__________
evolution is a fact as much as gravity is a fact. it is the theory of gravity. if you want to argue this point any further then you have some studying to do.
gravity and electromagnetism are just theories, think about that next time you fly on a plane
3 you can't disprove god exists_____
when establishing the reality of thing the onus is on the one making the claim. I believe that the flying spaghetti monster is real. disprove it. see how stupid this argument is
this sounds contrite but try and get over the emotional response you feel reading it and look at why its being said.
our society functions in this way. you don't go into a court of law without evidence that someone committed a murder, you don't say "i believe this man murdered so make him disprove it".
science does not work in this way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14
as i argue with people on the comments sections i will post more, expect me to copy and paste a lot from here :) feel free to copy and paste if the idiotic questions that come up time and again are answered in the same manner time and again maybe people will stop using those arguments and think for a second instead
Age
29
Country
Australia
