True... hence I don't believe in them.
You brought up fairies in this discussion. I couldn't care less if you believe in them or not.
Or are you suggesting I believe fairies? Personally, I think they do exist. A couple of them hang out in this forum, in the homosexuality thread.
Being Agnostic means open to proof.
LMAO.
You need only possess a rational faculty to be 'open to proof'. Being agnostic means one recognizes the existence of something unknowable, an makes a belief system based on this.
You, on the other hand, cannot even discern the difference between a metaphysical and scientific inquiry, not to mention the standard of proof required for each.
So you see, there are agnostics and there are ignoramuses.
The operation of Internet Explorer is a provable quantity. Since it can be proven it would fall under just that... proven.
Of course it is. The question is, how much of that proof are within YOUR comprehension? By your agnosticism, any aspect of internet explorer outside your comprehension makes it untrue for YOU.
This discussion is about epistemology. The highest form of human knowledge is one that is logically proven. Some human knowledge are merely demonstrated. The bulk of it, are those proceeding logically from a demonstrated truth.
YOUR truth consists only of the demonstrated variety. You cannot seem to grasp the logical consequences they lead to and still, you have the cheek to peddle it around as agnosticism.
Nope don't see it.
Your hypothesis is still trying to create something that you cannot prove. It's a 100% faith based argument. The same thing you're attempting to do could have been done to explain sparks before the scientific understanding of electricity.
It's a religious based guess about something scientific that is not completely understood.
Like this one right here. A hypothesis is an inferrence prior to a SCIENTIFIC experiment. I am not as ignorant as you to suppose that god's existence is a scientific inquiry.
You must be trying to be intentionally confused. None of that means there's a "God". What started everything certainly doesn't have to be a magical person. Why not a magical alien... or magical light force... or magical rock?
Correction. Your are confused.
The cosmological argument does not say god, nor does it say anything about the nature of god -- except those that logically follow from the proof.
If you have read aquainas' ontology, he ends his proof with '...and this, we call god'. Secular variations of the argument stops with 'first cause', 'necessary being', etc., depending on what the proof proceeds from.
You must see that it all goes circular... How was "God" created... He was always there... Can't make something from nothing...
Do you even know what you are talking about?
The conclusion states -- there must be a first cause that is not iself an effect, or, the first cause is infinite and incontingent.
There is nothing circular about that.
Well I'd give you a good provable ghost story... but that's my point. There is none. There's provable reality and there's story time.
You do not understand the thought experiment you ignorantly provided. This does not rectify this one bit.
Oh I've always understood your claim. It's just without any proven merit whatsoever.
No, you haven't. You are insisting on scientific evidence to prove a metaphysical inquiry. Now, if that is not a sign of a confused individual, then I don't know what is.
Duh?
You're saying that because there is no scientific test proving 100% evidence that everything either came from nothing
There is not even 1% of such a thing. In fact, it contradicts scientific principle -- the conservation of mass and energy.
or everything has always existed in one form or another...
As a matter of fact, the scientifically accepted premise is that everything came from a singularity -- whatever reference frame is concieveable is compressed within that singularity and that for all such reference frames, a segment of time is dilated to infinity.
then it must be a magic thing.
You can say that, since no rational law applies to said singularity. Whether you call such singularity -- god, magic, fairies -- is a matter of semantics.
I'd say there have been millions of things over the years that were just as amazingly not understood that were EVENTUALLY proven through scientific advancement. Right off the top of my head nuclear energy comes to mind.
But nuclear energy does not contradict conservation. You are talking of a scientific quantity that is both nothing and everything at the same time. I'd very much like to see what occurs 'right off the top of your head' that is similar to that.
Care to make another ignorant guess?
The main difference comes down to this. While we cannot answer every question yet through science we can show a successful pattern of accomplishment.
Again, this does not make any sense. A scientific quantity possesses the fundamental measures of mass, time and length. If the premise states that a quantity has not time and length and has an infinite mass/density, can such a thing be reasonably considered as a scientific quantity?
Certainly, the answer to such a question is still knowable, no?
You have no more than a zero proof faith based fable... of which even in that there are hundreds of different views throughout the multitude of differing religious communities.
I distinctly remember five ontological proofs -- which is irrelevant to religion because ontological proofs are independent of any of them.
And if these proofs are beyond your ability to know, then no one is in any position to argue against your ignorance, now, is there?
You have a right to believe anything you choose. You can believe a magical baloney sandwich was the start of all things.
Is that what you're inclined to believe, seeing as you have provided nothing but baloney?
But what you can't do for obvious reasons is prove it. [/B]
Not only have I provided an argument, you have failed to show any fallacy in the argument. And you have given every irrelevant thing imagineable EXCEPT this single one that matters.
