Why do so many theists think you must believe in abiogenesis if you don't believe in a god?

a reply to: IgnorantGod

I am a big Spinoza guy buy as you read I have an appreciation for pantheism. I understand he isn't everyone's cup of tea.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

I can reply by listing all the other claims of gods that people believe, but I can't define 'god' myself as I don't believe. Which one do you want me to reference? Thor, Odin, Shiva?
I don't believe in any creator god so asking me to define it is a lame question, my answer is reasoned, logical, and not a cop out as you put it.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

How do you feel about a necessary being? A prime mover?

The deist concepts?

Pantheism?

A creator of a simulation we live in?

An advanced race that planted life in the solar system and left?

a reply to: luthier

I keep an open mind to anything as a possibility, I just don't believe any myself due to the lack of verifiable evidence.
The advanced race planting life would still leave the unanswered question of 'where did they come from' so unless some new evidence is discovered it is as believable as claims of goblins and ghosts to me.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

What you are saying is false. It's the problem with Russell's teapot.

The problem with the teapot theory is if there is tea everywhere it becomes logical to assume there is a teapot.

For instance in critique to pure reason Kant a few hundred years ago came to the conclusion very similar to what say Hawkin is showing with math.
These things are done by following logic.

Like a necessary being that isn't contigent on something else. As you point out infinite regress is an issue, and a prime mover or nessary being solves that problem. Not that there isn't a rebutte. But it is "logical"

Is dark matter a gremlin? Or is there something that is hinting of its existence?

Math of coarse is a posteriori but something a priori isn't enherently false.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I have presented 2 facts. Not only that I've quoted Einstein's support. You have done nothing as to why E=MC energy cannot be equally to "God".

1 fact you presented is simply a fact that books have been written for millennia not that whats written in them is fact.

If you are claiming that the equation to work out how much energy something has equals God then you need prove it not ask another to prove its not.

Ah.. Still no scientific explanation as to why ancient people refer God to energy.

How about showing some, how about explaining how ancient people knew about energy to make the references?

Or are you making these references based on your interpretations?

Don't get me wrong, My beliefs are very similar that God is an intelligence or an energy that we interact with every moment of existence but there is no direct evidence to point to this intelligence existing, just personal experiences that are personal experiences that strengthen ones faith.

Some just delude themselves into thinking they have proof when in fact God cannot and will not be proven, God is about faith and faith alone.

That faith, if real enough can help an individual overcome many hardships and obstacles in life.

But you have prove nothing that God is not energy. Come on, show me the evidence that God is not energy. I have presented my evidence. Now its your turn.

evidence for what?


Cornish isn't making any claims, you are.


Correlation can be evidence at times while other its not.

Just because ancients wrote that God existed before everything, cannot be destroyed and what not is similar to how energy is explained and defined, all this is is correlation based on your belief, mine is the same but its not evidence of God.

There is no evidence of God that can be agreed upon.

Why can't you just counter evidence with evidence properly?

because they agree that energy cannot be created or destroyed,


You think this is evidence of God because how God is described correlates to how energy is described in a few ways.

All it does is strengthen your faith not show evidence for what you think it does.

a reply to: luthier

I assume nothing though, so how can what I posted be false?
I keep an open mind and don't believe in unverifiable claims of a creator god, how can that be false?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

I assume nothing though, so how can what I posted be false?
I keep an open mind and don't believe in unverifiable claims of a creator god, how can that be false?

I mean equating a prime mover or a necessary being with a unicorn, a spegetti monster, or a goblin.

a reply to: luthier

They share a common trait which is zero verifiable evidence to support the mythical claims.
I don't do faith, and when you think of the multiple claims from the Abrahamic god to Zoroastionism and everything in between, it seems daft for me to just pick one equally as unverifiable as the next.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

They share a common trait which is zero verifiable evidence to support the mythical claims.
I don't do faith, and when you think of the multiple claims from the Abrahamic god to Zoroastionism and everything in between, it seems daft for me to just pick one equally as unverifiable as the next.

There isn't verifiable evidence in much of quantum mechanics either. However there is evidence and logic that leads to theories. A necessary being has a logical premise and solves a problem. A unicorn does not.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I don't believe in any creator god so asking me to define it is a lame question, my answer is reasoned, logical, and not a cop out as you put it.

Yes it is a cop out.

Let me explain why I see it is, just from my view.


You could simply have actually answered and said

God is a word people use to describe something they believe in, if that is your definition of God.


again nothing about a creator in the question asked,

I can reply by listing all the other claims of gods that people believe, but I can't define 'god' myself as I don't believe. Which one do you want me to reference? Thor, Odin, Shiva?

Do you believe in fairies or unicorns?

lets say you don't believe these are real creatures or beings.


It would similar to say you cannot define what a unicorn or a fairy is because you don't believe in them?

But you can define these other fictional creatures and beings can you not?


Beliefs have nothing to do with definitions, one can define anything it doesn't matter if they believe in or not.


You could reference all of them and give us your definition that seems to simply be God is a belief people hold, that's it.



But like I said, usually when a that question is asked its for debate/argument purposes and not for simple discussion to get clarification.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

To be fair that was pretty much what I said, I could reference other people's beliefs all day, but not mine because I hold no belief in gods.
It is not a cop out, it is a reasoned position.
Heck god claims vary wildy, from tree gods to gods of war, what do you want from me man? I don't believe in any.

a reply to: luthier

Your god claims are just as unverifiable as claims of unicorns and dragons though.
You trying to convert me or something?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Your god claims are just as unverifiable as claims of unicorns and dragons though.
You trying to convert me or something?

They are not my god claims. These are philosophical arguments for god (Aquinas).

My purpose is to show you how to argue against the argument without falacy.

Right now you are saying anything unverifiable is the same as unicorns. This is false.

Falsifiable things are not the same as unknowns. Even Hopper knew this.

A unicorn is not the same as a necessary being.

Look up thr definition of a necessary being.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: InhaleExhale

To be fair that was pretty much what I said, I could reference other people's beliefs all day, but not mine because I hold no belief in gods.
It is not a cop out, it is a reasoned position.
Heck god claims vary wildy, from tree gods to gods of war, what do you want from me man? I don't believe in any.

Dude,


Are you just messing around now?


Not sure why you keep going on about beliefs and claims.


anyway

originally posted by: luthier
Right now you are saying anything unverifiable is the same as unicorns.

But I'm not though, I'm saying gods and unicorns are equally unverifiable so I don't believe in either. Massive difference, don't misinterpret me please.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Pity we have to struggle with the sole medium of text here, I reckon I'd enjoy a pint and chat over a game of pool with you. Face to face is so much better, oh well, I could say the same of lots of ATS members to be fair, even those I lock horns with.
There should be an ATS pub, I'd definitely visit

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier
Right now you are saying anything unverifiable is the same as unicorns.

But I'm not though, I'm saying gods and unicorns are equally unverifiable so I don't believe in either. Massive difference, don't misinterpret me please.

Sure they are unverifiable. So is my love for my daughters or we are not living in the matrix. Or that you see the same blue I do. Dark matter hasn't been completely verified or if gravity is emersive.

They don't all belong in the unicorn box.

Unless the unicorn is the creator living outside time and space contingent on only itself.

I am not arguing for god. Just that it has an argument beyond my book said so.