LogFAQs > #897299763

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Agnosticism is a cop out, "agnosticism" doesn't exist
Hexagon 03/06/18 7:21:47 PM #98:	What exactly are you trying to say? Are you just negating the what-ifs for deism to give the illusion that both stances have equal what-ifs? Dustin1280 posted... No being existed before the birth of the universe No shit. That's the definition of atheism. Dustin1280 posted... A series of random events happened to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion. This is not a "what if" that is part of the definition of Atheism. It's not even a "what if" because it doesn't even specify what this event is. You're just generalizing a cause and effect event. "Something happens and it makes everything else". That's not a "what-if". This one is easily countered by the fact that IF a sentient being existed before the birth of universe it would stand to reason we were not able to perceive such a being unless it made itself known. What if we can never perceive this being. What if it can, but hasn't let us yet. Pick one. I don't care. Either way there are still the same number of "what ifs". Dustin1280 posted... Obviously, if such a being existed we this would be true unless it made it self known. Atoms and molecules have existed since the birth of the universe (or very shortly after) and we can perceive those. So to say "obviously we can't perceive God" is, you guessed it, a "what if" Dustin1280 posted... Yawn. Same reasons as already stated. It's not the same thing. Learn to read. I said things that we can't perceive exist is a "what if". Tell me one other example of something that we know exists, but we can't perceive in some form. That makes it a "what if". <cite>Hexagon posted [p:897299763] in Agnosticis... [t:76379394]...</cite> <quote>What exactly are you trying to say? Are you just negating the what-ifs for deism to give the illusion that both stances have equal what-ifs? <cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>No being existed before the birth of the universe</quote> No shit. That's the definition of atheism. <cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>A series of random events happened to create every observable phenomena or at least set it in motion.</quote> This is not a "what if" that is part of the definition of Atheism. It's not even a "what if" because it doesn't even specify what this event is. You're just generalizing a cause and effect event. "Something happens and it makes everything else". That's not a "what-if". <quote>This one is easily countered by the fact that IF a sentient being existed before the birth of universe it would stand to reason we were not able to perceive such a being unless it made itself known.</quote> What if we can never perceive this being. What if it can, but hasn't let us yet. Pick one. I don't care. Either way there are still the same number of "what ifs". <cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>Obviously, if such a being existed we this would be true unless it made it self known.</quote> Atoms and molecules have existed since the birth of the universe (or very shortly after) and we can perceive those. So to say "obviously we can't perceive God" is, you guessed it, a "what if" <cite>Dustin1280 posted...</cite> <quote>Yawn. Same reasons as already stated.</quote> It's not the same thing. Learn to read. I said things that we can't perceive exist is a "what if". Tell me one other example of something that we know exists, but we can't perceive in some form. That makes it a "what if".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1