There is no truth without God. Everything you just said is based on faith. You don't have a deep philosophical understanding of the words you're using.
How do know that evidence is how you determine truth? How do you know that science can determine truth? You have FAITH it does. The scientific method CANNOT be proven VIA the scientific method. You have to BELIEVE/HAVE FAITH that it does, because there's no way to verify it.
Read that as many times as it takes for it to sink in. This is a common philosophical problem that arises when discussing positivism and empiricism.
Science deals with very few apoditic statements. It is all TENTATIVE based on newer information, thus all current science is JUST the most commonly agreed upon beliefs. 200 years from now, all modern science could be obsolete (false).
If there is no Sentient Creator who designed and structured the universe, then it follows that "truth"
as you perceive it is just your brain's random chemical reactions pretending to know what is real and what isn't. You can't even give me evidence that YOU EXIST and that I'm not talking to a bot or to a figment of your imagination without God. Without Intelligent Design (God), nothing is knowable.
What's that thing I keep hearing religious people say about the existence of their deity? I believe it's something about having faith is it not? You're not in a glass house perchance?
Wow. You didn't even TRY to answer any of my questions. It's like you tried to memory hole them like the media does with inconvenient stories because they were too much to handle. Are you acknowledging that your beliefs require some faith, just like religion does? 🤔 Also, you use the term faith as if it's a pejorative, but you have FAITH in the scientific method (scientism), and you have FAITH in your senses being able up perceive reality. The difference is that people who acknowledge God don't deny that faith is one of the components of their belief.
Wow. You didn't even TRY to answer any of my questions.
If you want to know why, I used to moderate a group that was for atheist vs religious discussion. I have heard it all before. I still haven't heard an argument that makes sense. You talk about my beliefs needing faith. No, they don't need anything because it's a lack of belief in someone else's story. That is all.
I also accept that it's not possible to know some things; I just choose not to insert a deity to try to explain it. I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing.
I no longer moderate that group and I did learn one thing from it and that was I do have a respect for religion and appreciate the value it can bring people. I just don't buy into the story that goes with it. I'd probably be religious myself if I didn't have to pretend I believed absurd things just to be in the club.
The number of times you've heard an argument is IRRELEVANT to its truth value. You've done nothing but regurgitate layman-tier armchair atheist rhetoric. The idea that you can derive logic and reasoning from chaos and the fact that you moderated an atheist vs religion group but don't understand that science is based on philosophical axioms that cannot be proven by evidence based means doesn't make any sense. You're making self refuting arguments and it doesn't bother you. That means you've got faith in the scientific method. Moreover, you should know that an appeal to absurdity is logically fallacious and shouldn't be the basis of your belief system. I hope you open your eyes while you still can, fren.
There is no truth without God. Everything you just said is based on faith. You don't have a deep philosophical understanding of the words you're using.
How do know that evidence is how you determine truth? How do you know that science can determine truth? You have FAITH it does. The scientific method CANNOT be proven VIA the scientific method. You have to BELIEVE/HAVE FAITH that it does, because there's no way to verify it.
Read that as many times as it takes for it to sink in. This is a common philosophical problem that arises when discussing positivism and empiricism.
Science deals with very few apoditic statements. It is all TENTATIVE based on newer information, thus all current science is JUST the most commonly agreed upon beliefs. 200 years from now, all modern science could be obsolete (false).
If there is no Sentient Creator who designed and structured the universe, then it follows that "truth" as you perceive it is just your brain's random chemical reactions pretending to know what is real and what isn't. You can't even give me evidence that YOU EXIST and that I'm not talking to a bot or to a figment of your imagination without God. Without Intelligent Design (God), nothing is knowable.
What's that thing I keep hearing religious people say about the existence of their deity? I believe it's something about having faith is it not? You're not in a glass house perchance?
Wow. You didn't even TRY to answer any of my questions. It's like you tried to memory hole them like the media does with inconvenient stories because they were too much to handle. Are you acknowledging that your beliefs require some faith, just like religion does? 🤔 Also, you use the term faith as if it's a pejorative, but you have FAITH in the scientific method (scientism), and you have FAITH in your senses being able up perceive reality. The difference is that people who acknowledge God don't deny that faith is one of the components of their belief.
If you want to know why, I used to moderate a group that was for atheist vs religious discussion. I have heard it all before. I still haven't heard an argument that makes sense. You talk about my beliefs needing faith. No, they don't need anything because it's a lack of belief in someone else's story. That is all.
I also accept that it's not possible to know some things; I just choose not to insert a deity to try to explain it. I'm perfectly comfortable not knowing.
I no longer moderate that group and I did learn one thing from it and that was I do have a respect for religion and appreciate the value it can bring people. I just don't buy into the story that goes with it. I'd probably be religious myself if I didn't have to pretend I believed absurd things just to be in the club.
The number of times you've heard an argument is IRRELEVANT to its truth value. You've done nothing but regurgitate layman-tier armchair atheist rhetoric. The idea that you can derive logic and reasoning from chaos and the fact that you moderated an atheist vs religion group but don't understand that science is based on philosophical axioms that cannot be proven by evidence based means doesn't make any sense. You're making self refuting arguments and it doesn't bother you. That means you've got faith in the scientific method. Moreover, you should know that an appeal to absurdity is logically fallacious and shouldn't be the basis of your belief system. I hope you open your eyes while you still can, fren.