1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

Atheist vs Theist

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by DennisTate, Mar 22, 2017.

  1. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    14,187
    Likes Received:
    294
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am convinced that an intelligence that could meet the general
    description of "God" has indeed evolved in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy, over something like eternity in the past.

    In chapter 13 of Stephen Hawking's Universe, Dr. Hawking explains The Anthropic Principle and an Atheistic variation on the Cyclic Model of the Universe. From what I have read of String Theory fundamental or nearly fundamental energy exists in primarily two forms, Super Strings and Super Waves.

    The behavior patterns of these Strings and Waves seem to correspond well even with male vs female thought and behavior patterns.

    Stephen Hawking Ph. D. in that chapter, postulates infinite time in the past for whatever types of energy existed before the latest major Big Bang event to move around, expand..... and eventually collapse.

    If Stephen Hawking Ph. D. thinks that fundamental energy existed from something resembling almost infinite time in the past, then why would not the first instance of "I think therefore I AM" perhaps eventually lead to the existence of a Being of Godlike Technological capability who could well design an afterlife, that may resemble hologram technology of the future?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2017
  2. YourBrainIsGod

    YourBrainIsGod Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    28
    With the chaotic nature of the universe I'm more inclined to believe in something like Azathoth than intelligent design.
     
  3. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Pretty sure multiple general descriptions of "God" exist, so given an inclination to pick just one, equate it to "an intelligence that could" do whatever, and so forth,... seems to me one should at least begin by clarifying their use of such terms. I come away feeling a profound lack of information needed to evaluate "Atheist vs Theist" as suggested by the title. So.. Questions:

    How do you "generally" define "God"?
    Do you feel this definition is fair and acceptable to Theists and Atheists alike?
    Do you feel this is the definition of "God" most people use?
    Do you wish for "intelligent design" to exist, and if so why?
    Do you wish suggestions of correlation to be convincing evidence of causation?
    Do you wish for "an afterlife", and if so why?

    How is this "Atheist vs Theist"? How about "Steven Hawking is God"? ;)
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  4. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,387
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Thread title- Atheist vs Theist
    ------------------------------------------

    The debate has been stalemated for centuries, because Atheists say "I can't see God, therefore he doesn't exist",
    but Theists say- "The universe and everything in it is proof he exists"..:)
     
  5. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    This one doesn't and I've yet to see any actual debate. There would be no debate even if one claiming to see or otherwise experience "God" actually provided some credible, scientific, testable, repeatable evidence for once. Theists only wish there was something to debate and agnostics are simply atheists with no balls.

    She. If you're going to argue appearances, women's looks are superior, no?
     
  6. BlackGuy

    BlackGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    You claim that agnostics are "atheist with no balls", but have you considered our argument? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, which is the claim that agnostics are making. The existence of God has not be proven, nor dis-proven. Therefore, it is an unknown. Yes, agnostics do lean towards the non-existence of God, but we recognize that we are making a judgement based on probability, and not absolute fact. This is the most logical position.

    Atheist believe that proving the non-existence of God is not necessary, but are they not making a claim just as the theist? Their claim is that God does not exist. That requires just as much proof as the claim that God does exist. Otherwise, there remains a probability of being wrong.

    The theist position is that God exist unless you show evidence that he doesn't.

    The atheist position is that God doesn't exist unless you show evidence that he does.

    The agnostic position is that it is unknown until there is irrefutable scientific evidence to support existence or non-existence.

    Note: I do not want everyone to be agnostic, because Atheism is necessary to counter-balance Theism. Without Atheism, Theism is unchallenged. Agnosticism is too luke-warm to carry out that function -- which is much needed.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2017
  7. Grumblenuts

    Grumblenuts Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2017
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Of course. Atheists as well.
    For everyone. Still no debate.
    You are confused. An atheist's only claim is non-belief.
    You are too kind. That would be refreshing. No, the theist makes a claim, thus bears the burden of proof, then simply offers miraculous stories and faith instead.

    Faith: Actual evidence be damned.
    Reason: That's circular (fallacious) reasoning.
    Faith: Reason be damned.
    Reason: Childish much?
    Nah, you probably have some balls but remain nonetheless confused. "Without Atheism, Theism is unchallenged." Correct. Let your balls breathe.


     

Share This Page