|
Quintinohthree (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321
"How would you know that we can't ever find god?"
I never said any of that. Reread please.
gtas321 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Quintinohthree How would you know that we can't ever find god? A man once said that humanity will never be able to tap into nuclear fusion as an energy source. Guess how wrong he was? You have no idea where we will be 4000 years down the line. Since we can't say if there is we have to say we simply do not know.
Quintinohthree (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321
"Perhaps once humanity colonizes the galaxy and we evolve accordingly, just maybe... But for now, we cannot say if there isn't."
And we can't ever so that's not the problem. It's whether we can say there is, and we can't so we mustn't say there is.
Quintinohthree (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321
"And yes, god will definitely be able to be proven or proven wrong one day."
Then tell me of the conceivable test that will do so.
"Who are you to say that?"
Just someone who has done that little philosophy class in which you learn that universal negatives can't be proven and no evidence can exist for them.
"You and I are mere apes with large brains."
Capable of logic and science, let us not forget that.
cont'd...
Quintinohthree (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321
"There really is no way of knowing until you die. And even after you die there still may be no way of knowing."
I hold the stance that we need never consider considering as true any statement whose truth is indistinguishable from its falsehood.
"Simply saying you do NOT KNOW would be better."
Than what? I don't know, and with your god I can't ever know. Unlike you I won't pretend I may ever be able to know, and I don't believe either.
cont'd...
Quintinohthree (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321
"Not considering would only make you extremely arrogant."
If it is your stance that not considering considering (no typo) as true any statement whose truth is indistinguishable, both in present and in future, from its falsehood as arrogant, then I must admit that I find you arrogant for expecting others to take serious what can't be taken serious.
cont'd...
anundeniabledilemma (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321 Claiming to know with ultimate absolution that God(s) will eventually be provable/disprovable is what is arrogant.
gtas321 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Quintinohthree Not considering would only make you extremely arrogant. There really is no way of knowing until you die. And even after you die there still may be no way of knowing. Simply saying you do NOT KNOW would be better. And yes, god will definitely be able to be proven or proven wrong one day. Who are you to say that? You and I are mere apes with large brains. Perhaps once humanity colonizes the galaxy and we evolve accordingly, just maybe... But for now, we cannot say if there isn't.
Quintinohthree (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@gtas321
It's not just that we can't yet test or falsify the existence of your deistic god, we can't ever. We can't even conceive of a test to do it, of something in reality that could not comply with its existence. I do not expect to be capable of seeing any god, but if I can't devise a test which would distinguish its existence from its non-existence, I can't even consider it. I expect only that and nothing more. Deism specifically avoids this instead of providing it.
gtas321 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@Quintinohthree Of course you can't test the existence of god... We haven't even colonized our own solar system yet, wth would you think we'd ever be able to actually see god? The only answer is agnosticism. Which is why I am scientific deist. Agnostic Deism is apart of scientific deism -_- |
