Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
the definition of gnosticI'll believe it when I see it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
the definition of gnosticI'll believe it when I see it.
Amen, sister!Subjectivity is in the same boat as objectivity: the two are not inherent. Reality claims both, so is neither. They are just ways of looking at the world, ways of looking at all things: without reference to the subject, or with it.
Apart from the obvious, "Then where did god come from?" question (And no special pleading) have you read this...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00838F4IE/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
That tends to disagree with your statement
One does not even need to assume that there are no miracles. The fact is that there are no reliable miracles. There are all sorts of claims of them from competing faiths. This makes all such claims highly suspect.It can be. If by science you mean the prior assumption taken axiomatically that all things have a natural origin and there are no miracles. That assumption is not inherent to the scientific method and so naturalism can be a religious world view in that sense
It can be if you take a 'you can't let the divine foot in the door' approach as some have no matter how the data looks rather than going where the evidence leads as a prior commitment
Operational sciences of medicine, agriculture, engineering, technology tend to be more be neutral
Origin sciences can carry philosophical biases
It can be. If by science you mean the prior assumption taken axiomatically that all things have a natural origin and there are no miracles. That assumption is not inherent to the scientific method and so naturalism can be a religious world view in that sense
It can be if you take a 'you can't let the divine foot in the door' approach as some have no matter how the data looks rather than going where the evidence leads as a prior commitment
Operational sciences of medicine, agriculture, engineering, technology tend to be more be neutral
Origin sciences can carry philosophical biases
God is an uncaused cause with no beginning... why is that a problem
That is not what I meant by ‘bookish’, however.
Lack of evidence?
I would call that a problem, how about you?
Perhaps your prior commitment to naturalism (your religious view) is what makes it a problem,?
I have no religious view it would be inconsistent with both science and atheism if i did. Therefore not a problem
I could say,, "Show me your god" it is Ockham's Razor - the simplest solution is that there is no god.
It is the same thing; I am not excluding that something could come from nothing; you are.
I don't know (and that's fine with me) I have no proof but I am not ruling it out.
There could be a god, I doubt it but will happily change my mind if the evidence points that way.
How can anyone be a pure agnostic on the belief of existence?I agree that there is no evidence for or against the existence of gods. I stated that in my above post. But at least theism can provide a positive purpose. And agnosticism can claim honest open-mindedness. But atheism can claim none of these. It's a pointless, unfounded bias, that closes off the mind to other possibilities. That's it. It has no defense, which is why so few atheists will admit that they are atheists, when pressed, and instead pretend to be agnostics.
Semantics... it depends what you mean by religion.
All things with a beginning need a cause. Things with no beginning do not
We also cannot escape that "it is," since we are ("I am").Amen, sister!
But in the end, we cannot escape ourselves. We ARE always subject to the limitations that come with our being a unique, individual human being. And since those limitations result in our being non-omniscient, the theory that objective evidence = truth is BS. (And so is the theory that subjective experience = truth, of course.)
That is just a special pleading fallacy. It gets you nowhere. And it also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Big Bang. It was the beginning of our universe as we know it. It was not necessarily the beginning of everything. We may not know the cause of the Big Bang itself, but no knowing is never a valid reason to invoke a god.Semantics... it depends what you mean by religion.
Logically? All things with a beginning need a cause. Things with no beginning do not.
Atheism is basically the null hypothesis. It is the starting point one changes from it when one finds evidence that supports a belief. It needs no evidence. It is claims that there is a specific god that need evidence.
Basically the negative statement to what the physicist puts forward; however, it has never been shown how anything can come from nothing. If nothing could never have existed then something has always existed.
For example lets say that an an electron the became into something. An electron would need space, momentum, charge, mass and etc. An electron is not one thing but many things. How could a singularity produce everything from nothing?
It only becomes a non-issue if one can provide objective evidence of God. As stated, there is objective evidence of absence.