A possibility you might what to keep open is that the God you don't believe in is not the God that exists. You rejected a God you believe in by defining what you don't believe. The God you don't believe in does not exist.
So I guess another thing that bothers me with this is that it has been shown that many people feel they require some form of philosophical underpinning to their lives. Something that they can hold onto and strongly assert. For many religion plays this role. For others Atheism plays the role. In this sense Atheism is indeed a theism. Atheists, me included, strongly assert that there IS no god, in the face of there not being any evidence for or against one. While I agree that Possibilianism is in some way a more logical world view it doesn't fill the emotional and philosophical role that atheism and religion does. And I don't agree that it's ANYWHERE near as close/simple minded as religion. Stating that something as complex and fanciful as a supreme Deity DOES exists despite a total lack of evidence is NOT the same as stating that such a thing does NOT exist despite a lack of evidence. Yes for me atheism is a "belief" one that DOES have emotional and philosophical underpinnings (see existentialism!). I don't feel I'm stupid for holding such a "belief" however.
Basically it can be translated by what you're saying in this cited portion, that the possibility of aliens are false until science proves they are aliens?
In retrospect, to show that a god exists requires a form of science testing to prove it.. but god can also 'modify' the study without our knowledge to throw us off track and show it is not him?
I'm just not understanding, because how can someone assume that aliens exists when there is no scientific proof of one out there yet.
Possibilianism is a waste of my time because by definition it cannot provide answers. Even IF God came down, explained everything to us and then flew off, we still have the possibility that it was just some Alien troll and it was all lies. Or that it was a dream, we are still in the dream, and we will soon awake in the world where God didn't come down. Or, Or, Or. It doesn't seem scientific to me in the least, because you should at least consider the possibility that God can bend all of our scientific tests to fudge the results
To be honest I'm confused by your question of my cited portion
My criticism was in the basis that under possibilianism ANYTHING is possible. The scientific method itself requires some assumptions that possibilianism breaks, rendering the scientific method useless. It's possible that gravity doesn't exist, and even though we can test it it's possible that the results are a clever disguise by our alien overlord because it's a requirement of his science project.
One can have philosophical disagreements without being a fool. One only descends to the level of a fool when it becomes a shouting match. See my post above. I'll give this philosophy it's place and accept the ideas but I still remain a staunch atheist. No shouting from me.
A possibility you might what to keep open is that the God you don't believe in is not the God that exists. You rejected a God you believe in by defining what you don't believe. The God you don't believe in does not exist.
I am fully open to such a suggestion. However which god would you posit the existents of? I do indeed reject any of the gods as defined by practiced religions. If you mean a more existential definition of god, more idea than reality then I would argue that is not a god.
The only truth is in what one believes. If you do not believe, then your truth is a lie.
Funny thing is, nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. You're all liars and zealots at the same time.
Ok, it appeared I misunderstood the context. I thought you were stating that god did not exist, but you had accepted that aliens were (by the mentioning of alien trolls).
But who's to say answers are always immediately needed? It stated a bit earlier in the thread that we are plagued by this problem nowadays; people always want immediate answers to something whether it can be 'solved' or not.
I agree. My position on creation is that we are not capable of the intelligence to understand it. .
Defeatist. "Never gonna know, so why bother?"
I'm as much a defeatist as anyone on this forum thinking that they couldn't beat Lebron 1-on-1. I'd love to be able to know, I just don't think we have the capacity. I guess I should say "think" every time (so people don't infer that I'm certain), but I don't because it shouldn't be necessary.
I think our issue with ever figuring out creation is how we perceive time. Until we can overcome that hurdle we're going to have a lot of trouble.
Then again, it's not like I'm the peak of human existence, so maybe it's just arrogant to think another human can't view the universe in a completely unique way.
The thing is, we already have a good understanding of the bulk of "Creation". It is called Evolution. What we don't know is how it started or what caused the beginning of the Universe, but in time I'm confident we will know the answers to both of those questions as well.
The thing is, we already have a good understanding of the bulk of "Creation". It is called Evolution. What we don't know is how it started or what caused the beginning of the Universe, but in time I'm confident we will know the answers to both of those questions as well.
How it started is what creation is. Contrary to popular belief, creationism and evolutionary theory describe 2 different concepts. They could coexist and both be true.
I'm not sure why people are talking about belief and truth as though they are related.
so you can twist the definition of creationism to fit your own agenda AND twist the definition of atheism at the same time, again, fitting your agenda? sweet bro
The thing is, we already have a good understanding of the bulk of "Creation". It is called Evolution. What we don't know is how it started or what caused the beginning of the Universe, but in time I'm confident we will know the answers to both of those questions as well.
Good stuff and where I lie as well.
Atheism is absurd if you understand how little we know. Religion(s) are equally absurd given how it's debunked over time and knowing man's penchant for dark matter fill in the blanks which can't be proven. The only possibility left is "I don't know"