forums.rs

Forums

Off Topic Chat Lounge Thread is sticky

Quick find code: 23-24-312-63626936

of 2595
Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Raleirosen said :
Nexus Origin said :
Do you have proof that it is "totally wrong"? Aren't you coming to a conclusion without any facts to base it on? Isn't that what you're claiming that believers in God are doing? That's kind of a double standard, isn't it?

How do you propose that the rules for the universe came into existence? I'm not saying your conclusion is totally wrong, I'm instead referring to your argument. You're saying that design/rules/patterns/etc. necessitate a creator or designer, I'm rejecting that because there is no evidence or facts to support it. Burden of proof is on you. Nice try, though. No, I asked a question: "And wouldn't patterns be an indication of intelligent design?". I simply asked a question, I did not present a point of debate. If your answer is "No", then the burden of proof is on you to explain why your answer is "No". I have no burden of proof, as I simply asked a question.

If your answer is "No, because there is no evidence or facts to support it", then I'm assuming that you have evidence and facts to support your argument that it isn't true?
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

09-Sep-2017 21:44:24 - Last edited on 09-Sep-2017 21:50:03 by Nexus Origin

Raleirosen

Raleirosen

Posts: 5,069 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Nexus Origin said :
No, I asked a question: "And wouldn't patterns be an indication of intelligent design?". I simply asked a question, I did not present a point of debate. If your answer is "No", then the burden of proof is on you to explain why your answer is "No". I have no burden of proof, as I simply asked a question. Yes, you simply asked a question... then went on to give your answer.
Nexus Origin said :
Someone, or something, must have defined those patterns.

I'm not claiming that God exists, or that anyone's interpretation of God is correct, but, at some point, all the rules for physics and mechanics of the universe must have been defined. So, who, or what, defined all the rules for the universe?

What I do believe is that "gods" did exists, but, they were physical beings with knowledge and technology that the humans at the time did not understand. Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.

09-Sep-2017 21:48:12

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Okay, so I did share my opinion on it. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

But it seems like you're trying to say that your lack of evidence and proof is stronger than my lack of evidence and proof, therefore your nothingness is correct, and my nothingness is incorrect.

How can one side or the other be considered "right" or "completely wrong", when neither side has any evidence or proof to support them?
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

09-Sep-2017 21:52:46

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
I'm still interesting in hearing your opinion on how the rules of the universe came into existence, if you don't believe it was intelligent design (again, not comparing intelligent design to any current religious beliefs). Do you believe it was simply random coincidence?
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

09-Sep-2017 21:55:25

Raleirosen

Raleirosen

Posts: 5,069 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Nexus Origin said :
But it seems like you're trying to say that your lack of evidence and proof is stronger than my lack of evidence and proof, therefore your nothingness is correct, and my nothingness is incorrect.

How can one side or the other be considered "right" or "completely wrong", when neither side has any evidence or proof to support them? Because one side is making the leap to actually believing in the thing for which there is no evidence. Both sides would be wrong to assert certainty, so in the absence of certainty the only thing left to be wrong about is whether you're believing something on faith.

For the record I don't necessarily think your beliefs about the rules of the universe are faith-based, it seems like you're just into speculative thinking. Nothing wrong with that, and I doubt it impacts your thoughts on other subjects, let alone your behavior. But that isn't necessarily the case for religious people, whose thinking and behavior can be heavily impacted by their faith.
Nexus Origin said :
I'm still interesting in hearing your opinion on how the rules of the universe came into existence, if you don't believe it was intelligent design (again, not comparing intelligent design to any current religious beliefs). Do you believe it was simply random coincidence? I'm not a cosmologist, any opinion I'd express would be totally speculative. Random chance is as good an explanation as any (and I appreciate the whimsical quality of it). Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.

09-Sep-2017 22:00:03 - Last edited on 09-Sep-2017 22:05:45 by Raleirosen

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Here's the thing though. Let's say I have a box. Inside the box is a ball of a specific color.

I turn to you and say "the ball is red". You ask if I have any proof that the ball is red, and I respond with "no". Then you respond with "You're completely wrong", even though you have no proof that the ball isn't red, and your explanation is that I am wrong about it being red, even though you have no proof that it isn't red, and that your only reasoning for denying my claim that the ball is red is a lack of evidence.
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

09-Sep-2017 22:12:05

Nexus Origin

Nexus Origin

Posts: 21,010 Opal Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Raleirosen said :
Nexus Origin said :
I'm still interesting in hearing your opinion on how the rules of the universe came into existence, if you don't believe it was intelligent design (again, not comparing intelligent design to any current religious beliefs). Do you believe it was simply random coincidence? I'm not a cosmologist, any opinion I'd express would be totally speculative. Random chance is as good an explanation as any (and I appreciate the whimsical quality of it). I'm not opposed to speculation. :)

So you believe it was simply random chance?
_
_
_
_
_________
m
_________
_
_
_
_

McDelivery Now Available In Canada

McDonalds
-
I'm lovin' it.

09-Sep-2017 22:18:47

Raleirosen

Raleirosen

Posts: 5,069 Rune Posts by user Forum Profile RuneMetrics Profile
Nexus Origin said :
Here's the thing though. Let's say I have a box. Inside the box is a ball of a specific color.

I turn to you and say "the ball is red". You ask if I have any proof that the ball is red, and I respond with "no". Then you respond with "You're completely wrong", even though you have no proof that the ball isn't red, and your explanation is that I am wrong about it being red, even though you have no proof that it isn't red, and that your only reasoning for denying my claim that the ball is red is a lack of evidence. Again, I wasn't attacking your conclusion, just the argument for the conclusion. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

In your analogy, my "You're completely wrong" statement would be referring to you saying that the ball is red based on seemingly nothing, not the color of the ball itself. Patrolling Lore FC almost makes you wish for a Great Revision.

09-Sep-2017 22:20:35 - Last edited on 09-Sep-2017 22:24:57 by Raleirosen

Quick find code: 23-24-312-63626936 Back to Top