Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

Please know that I believe this is true and I am honestly trying to see the other side of the argument. Sometimes I wonder if others are doing the same?

You have humility so you do see both sides. That is the point. You are constantly miscategorized in these various threads by people who want to remove the speck from your eye completely unaware of the log in their own. They aren't even aware they are doing it.

Quote: FrGamble

Please know that I believe this is true and I am honestly trying to see the other side of the argument.

Atheism isn't a side to anything. It's like
saying not collecting stamps is a position.
If you're a stamp collector, do you question
and doubt all non stamp collectors?
Do you try and get them to defend their
reasons for not collecting? Of course not,
it would be ridiculous.

Yet it clearly baffles you why atheists don't
believe as you do. You see evidence of god and
we don't. You love stamps with a passion
and we don't see why. A collector of
anything never questions why others
don't collect, yet god believers constantly
question atheists.

Isn't this curious to you, that god people
are so threatened by non believers. I
know the reason, do you?

Quote: Nareed

There are several references to giants in many ancient civilizations. We haven't excavated every cubic inch of the planet where their fossilized remains might be found. So how can you deny they existed?

Oh I thought you meant giants currently living among us like in the excellent movie BFG. It does make it harder to prove something didn't happen in the past. However, because giants are not essential to the cause of all existence and they are material beings who are quite big of which we have no proof I will persist in my aginatism until we discover physical evidence for them or I have a personal encounter with one.

Quote:

Aren't you afraid of what will happen in the next world if you meet Osiris, Thoth and the rest?

Not at all.

Quote: Evenbob

In my example? No motive because he
didn't know the guy. Alibi is he's on a
video eating lunch when the crime was
committed.

I think you are confused. You mentioned that eye witnesses, hundreds of them, were not valid in court. When you realized you were wrong you added that in this case there was a lack of physical evidence, an alibi, and no motive. However, remember that the evidence is existence, and God is claiming to be at the scence and He has a motive, namely love.

Quote:

There are a dozen other explanations, just
none that you'll accept.

What other explanations are there besides your theory of a infinite material universe that everyone realizes is impossible? There is no other explanation besides an all-powerful spiritual eternal and infintie force or being that caused all things to exist. If you have another explination I would love to hear it and unlike you I will not close my mind to any option that makes sense. By the way this idea of God as the first cause is not something that the Church came up with.

Quote: Evenbob

Wow, you're in for a hard time of
it if all your beliefs are waiting for
science to catch up.

I kind of feel like there is an implicit acknowledgement that science does not support your belief here. Are you saying you know the truth and eventually science will somehow prove you right? That seems to me skating on very thin ice and prideful.

Quote:

The difference
between you and me is, I don't care
if you believe my take on things,
what does that have to do with the
truth.

No the difference between us is that I care very much about the truth and realize it is not a subjective thing. I'm trying to show you that atheism is not true. Not because I want to convert you to Christianity or Hinduism or anything, but just so you will know and understand the truth.

Quote:

Because they doubt it too, that's why.

I don't follow you. If you doubt something why would you argue about it and expose yourself to good arguments that counter your opinion. If you doubted something I would think you would just write someone off as crazy, say some mean stuff about them, call them illogical or crazy and not discuss it, kind of like Dalex is doing.

Quote: Evenbob

Atheism isn't a side to anything. It's like
saying not collecting stamps is a position.

Wouldn't this be more like being anti-stamp collecting or in our discussion being non-religious. Atheism is more akin to someone saying there are no stamps.

Quote:

If you're a stamp collector, do you question
and doubt all non stamp collectors?
Do you try and get them to defend their
reasons for not collecting? Of course not,
it would be ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous , such is the fruit of a reductio ad absurdum argument. However, if stamp collecting changed my life for the better and helped me to understand and life live to the fullest I would try to get people to collect stamps. If I thought collecting stamps would make people feel they were loved and of infinite worth and that by collecting stamps they would realize their life had meaning and that they would live forever then you better believe I would ask them why they weren't collecting stamps and encourage and help them to start.

Quote:

Yet it clearly baffles you why atheists don't
believe as you do.

Continuing with your analogy it baffles me why atheists don't believe stamps exist.

Quote:

Isn't this curious to you, that god people
are so threatened by non believers. I
know the reason, do you?

Who is threatened? I am not. I imagine you think it is because believers really don't believe, but you would be wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

, remember that the evidence is existence.

You say 'remember' like you're stating a
fact. You can't even explain what existence
is, let alone claim it's a fact for any argument.

Quote:

that everyone realizes is impossible?

Really? You really think a million Hindu's
are wrong, that they think it's impossible?
A religion that predates yours by millennia.

Quote: FrGamble

Oh dear Lord,...what is illogical about saying that for there to be anything there had to be a cause?!? Logic IS evidence in that you can know things for certain through it. If a rock hits you on the head then something acted on that rock, you don't have any evidence to reach that conclusion but you have the evident logic. Same thing with A cannot equal not-A. I don't even have to tell you what A is but you know with absolute certainty the truth of such a statement. This is what I mean when I say logic is evidence. Please for the love of God tell me how I have not listened to you and how anything I have said above is illogical. I really need to know.

Just reread this thread and the others like it to see how often I tried to point out your illogical arguments and your use of logical fallacies. I'm not even going after your beliefs in those posts, just your poor arguments.

Logic and reason is not evidence. You can use logic and evidence to create a hypotheses, and then you have to be able to test it.

Geocentrism was based purely on logic and reason, but it was NOT evidence that it was correct.

String theory and m-theory is based purely on logic and reason, and a whole lot of math, but it is not evidence that strings, or multiple dimensions, exist. This theory exists in the same place as geocentrism, before it was disproven by... wait for it... evidence.

As for the rock, you can use logic and reason to make a hypothesis that something acted on the rock. Without further evidence, though, you can not know who, or what, acted on the rock.

I have posted links to many articles in the past here. If you want me to, I can do that again. I won't be attacking your beliefs, just your arguments, logic, assumptions, that sort of thing.

One of the most basic ones that keeps getting repeated is - if you have some hypothesis, and have not found any evidence to disprove your hypotheses, then this is not evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

Quote:

I imagine you think it is because believers really don't believe, but you would be wrong.

Of course it's the reason! They're insecure,
they're not really sure. That's why they're
so overjoyed when they convert somebody,
it must really be true, I talked another person
into it. There's no evidence for any god,
there's no evidence Jesus rose from the dead.
And in the back of their minds every Christian
knows they're running on pure high octane
faith, and relying on the faith of others. And
if that's all you have, the air can get
pretty rarefied sometimes, breathing can
get tough at those heights. You need all
the help you can get to keep that faith.

Quote: Dalex64

Just reread this thread and the others like it to see how often I tried to point out your illogical arguments and your use of logical fallacies. I'm not even going after your beliefs in those posts, just your poor arguments.

Logic and reason is not evidence. You can use logic and evidence to create a hypotheses, and then you have to be able to test it.

Geocentrism was based purely on logic and reason, but it was NOT evidence that it was correct.

String theory and m-theory is based purely on logic and reason, and a whole lot of math, but it is not evidence that strings, or multiple dimensions, exist. This theory exists in the same place as geocentrism, before it was disproven by... wait for it... evidence.

As for the rock, you can use logic and reason to make a hypothesis that something acted on the rock. Without further evidence, though, you can not know who, or what, acted on the rock.

I have posted links to many articles in the past here. If you want me to, I can do that again. I won't be attacking your beliefs, just your arguments, logic, assumptions, that sort of thing.

One of the most basic ones that keeps getting repeated is - if you have some hypothesis, and have not found any evidence to disprove your hypotheses, then this is not evidence that your hypothesis is correct.

Thank you.

Let me say that you are correct that logic is neutral in some regards. It is like a machine that will give you results only based on the quality of what you put in. If your premises are flawed the conclusion can logicaly be correct but factually wrong. Such is the case with geocentrism. If the best data at the time is wrong you can logically hold a conclusion that is incorrect but logically valid. I never meant to say that just because something is logically true it is always facutally true.

We are in agreement about the rock analogy. What if the rock is the entire universe. It exists and is in motion. The same logic would say that some force acted upon it to create and set it in motion. Logic will not tell us exactly what this force or being is but logic and philosophy will make clear some of its neccesary attributes. These attributes we generally attribute to what we commonly call God.

In regards to the hypothesis not being proven wrong does not mean that it is correct. I agree. I imagine that you would also agree that because a hypothesis is not proven correct does not mean that it is wrong. However, these are the kind of weak hypotheses that will be subject to further changes and lead us to sometimes make logical conclusions that are not actually true. Therefore I have tried to use premises that are unmistakenly true such as; "something cannot come from nothing" "the universe began to exist" "there cannot be an actual infintie regress" "everything that begins to exist has a cause" "a contingent thing cannot have the cause for its existence in itself" etc. etc. I don't think these premises are in doubt nor is there any chance that some other discovery will counter them as they fall outside of the purview of the observable sciences.