XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.athiesm, alt.talk.creationism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
   From: lunch@nofreelunch.us   
      
   On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 23:01:34 -0400, "R.Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On 10/11/2014 8:33 AM, August Rode wrote:   
   >> On 10/10/2014 11:06 PM, R.Dean wrote:   
   >>> On 10/10/2014 8:48 PM, August Rode wrote:   
   ...   
   >>>> Hmm... you don't seem to like answering questions. Is there a particular   
   >>>> reason for that?   
   >>>  >   
   >>> We've addressed this before. I've never _claimed_ it does.   
   >>   
   >> That's correct but that isn't an answer to my question. Not even   
   >> remotely. Here it is again in a slightly different form:   
   >>   
   >>      Does belief in the truth of a claim mean that   
   >>      the claim is true?   
   > >   
   >Not in and of itself. Regardless of how strong one's believes in the   
   >fidelity of one's mate, that doesn't mean he/she is faithful.   
   >Neither does it mean he/she is not.   
      
   It is also true that just because you believe in a god, that does not   
   mean your god exists or your religious beliefs are valid.   
      
   >>> When you   
   >>> demand natural explanations for everything how is this resolved?   
   >>   
   >> I'll say the same thing to you that I've told others, that I'd accept a   
   >> sound argument in place of natural explanations.   
   > >   
   >Forgive me, but I question that statement.   
      
   Why not offer a sound argument against it?   
      
   ...   
      
   >>>> Unless I miss my guess, *all* Christians do. There's really not much   
   >>>> reason to be a Christian if God doesn't exist, is there?   
   >>>>   
   >>> Christians _believe_ God exist.   
   >>   
   >> Many of them _claim_ that God exists. However, for those that don't make   
   >> such a claim overtly, believing that God exists is identical to   
   >> believing that the claim "God exists" is true. No matter which way you   
   >> cut it, Christians hold a definite position on the claim that God   
   >> exists. You'll have to forgive me if I don't see much difference between   
   >> making a claim and believing a claim to be true.   
   > >   
   >The point is, and most Christians will tell you that it all comes down   
   >to a matter of faith. You cannot _know_.   
      
   Don't forget that many believers believe X when the evidence shows that   
   X is not true. Why do they believe things that are not true?   
      
   >>> They cannot prove he does.   
   >>   
   >> Correct. That doesn't seem to stop many of them from trying, though.   
   >> Some of them brandish the argument from design as if it was intended to   
   >> demonstrate something.   
   > >   
   >If one does not have an apriori and overriding adherence to naturalism.   
      
   Provide a usable alternative that has the same ability to throw out   
   nonsense.   
      
   >then design could be seen as indirect evidence of a designer. However,   
   >if design is disallowed up front and not allowed to show up for the   
   >game, then it's not even in play. Naturalism may NOT be the better   
   >explanation, nevertheless, it wins, but _only_ through default.   
      
   Design had won by default into the early 19th Century and then was   
   rejected by scientists without any "a priori and overriding adherence to   
   naturalism". Design lost.   
      
   By the way, alleging design is meaningless if you cannot point to a real   
   designer. Since there is no evidence to support any of the gods that   
   have been proposed, why bother?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)