{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/26/2014 3:12:51 PM
15
It's not even the metaphysics and ontology which is the problem with religion. It's the epistemology and ethics of it.
Everybody is an agnostic, and the only people who try and truly deny that are dogmatic fundamentalists. Having a belief that there is a extra-natural superintendent is fine. Having the belief, or pretending to have the knowledge, of precisely who this superintendent is, is where it crosses the line.
English
-
[quote]Everybody is an agnostic[/quote]lol no
-
Uh yeah we are. To say that a cosmic deity 100% irrefutably does not exist isn't any better than saying it 100% irrefutably does exist. Everyone in an objective technical sense, is an agnostic.
-
Nobody can be certain 100 percent.
-
That's...what I'm saying yeah.
-
No, because god isn't a possibility. Why? Because it doesn't fit with reality, it's literally magic. Magic cannot exist, therefore, god is not a possibility.
-
That's a declarative statement if I ever saw one.
-
I'd like to hear your argument otherwise.
-
The concept of supernatural is by definition, supernatural, or magical, or fake, or made up. It doesn't fit with reality. There's literally no possibility of a god, because god falls requires magical powers to exist.
-
There's a reason I avoided the use of the word "supernatural".
-
Except that's literally what god is. In fact, that's exactly how religious people describe god.
-
The operative word being "religious". Is it so hard to imagine that the definition of God could evolve and be stretched? What of pan- and panen-theism? What of the simulation hypothesis? In all of these instances, the "creator" or "grand architect", as it were, the label God could be appropriately prescribed.
-
In every definition god is there a call for supernatural powers.
-
[quote]Is it so hard to imagine that the definition of God could evolve and be stretched? What of pan- and panen-theism? What of the simulation hypothesis? In all of these instances, the "creator" or "grand architect", as it were, the label God could be appropriately prescribed.[/quote]
-
I can't tell if you don't understand me or if you're just being an idiot. Could you provide an example in which the existence of a god wouldn't require supernatural powers?
-
[quote] What of pan- and panen-theism? What of the simulation hypothesis?[/quote] Do you know what they are? They don't require a supernatural God - in the capacity that you define supernatural.
