Workch:
exactly what atheists and theists don't want to understand

How then do you know this god has the ability to exist or not?

Workch:
That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not.

Deist say that it's a god, atheist say it's not.

Me: we can never know, we don't know.

Some minutes ago you said

A specific kind of God that caused the singularity to form before big bang. That one

Then precisely 5 minutes later, you deposited this

That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not

How do you reconcile the two statements?

jaephoenix:


Some minutes ago you said

A specific kind of God that caused the singularity to form before big bang. That one

Then precisely 5 minutes later, you deposited this

That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not

How do you reconcile the the statements?

I am telling you deistic claims. Like what they claim, not mine.

You don't understand?

I am saying that that specific kind of diestic claim can never be disproven by anybody, not even the smartest atheist on earth.

It's why agnostics hold their position

Do you understand me now?

Workch:
I am telling you deistic claims. Like what they claim, not mine.

You don't understand?

I am saying that that specific kind of diestic claim can never be disproven by anybody, not even the smartest atheist on earth.

It's why agnostics hold their position

Do you understand me now?

Remove the “deistic” and put “yahweh” what’s the difference?
The pope, a yahweh worshipper believes in big bang.

jaephoenix:


Some minutes ago you said

A specific kind of God that caused the singularity to form before big bang. That one

Then precisely 5 minutes later, you deposited this

That's why I am agnostic in the first place, I don't know if it's a god that caused it or not

How do you reconcile the two statements?

Seem like you still do not understand what Agnosticism is?

Kindly read about it

Maynman:

We don’t need to say anything is right and wrong, we will reject it because no one can know. Their explanation of the universe is wrong from their first statement because no one can know.

I dont understand what this means. Break it down/.

Workch:
I am telling you deistic claims. Like what they claim, not mine.

You don't understand?

I am saying that that specific kind of diestic claim can never be disproven by anybody, not even the smartest atheist on earth.

It's why agnostics hold their position

Do you understand me now?

Which of them is a deistic claim? First or second

DeepSight:


I dont understand what this means. Break it down/.

If you look up the origin of the word “agnostic” it means “ignorant of, not known”. It has nothing to do with “gods” unless you are an agnostic theist.
If you say we don’t know and it’s unknowable how the universe came to be, with that stand shouldn’t we reject all claims that tries to explain how the universe came to be either by theism or science or by rationality, because we are ALL agnostic (ignorant of)

Workch:
Seem like you still do not understand what Agnosticism is?

Kindly read about it

I know. The issue is the ones I see here tend to qualify the 'I don't know if there's a god'

jaephoenix:

Which of them is a deistic claim? First or second

Let me break it down.

Deists basically claim that, the a god must have formed the singularity that expanded into the universe. It's not my claim, I don't have evidence for or against it.

My position is that, I don't believe or disbelieve deists.

Workch:
Let me break it down.

Deists basically claim that, the a god must have formed the singularity that expanded into the universe. It's not my claim, I don't have evidence for or against it.

My position is that m, I don't believe or disbelieve deists.

Yahweh worshippers claim that too.
A deist is a monotheist without religion.

jaephoenix:

I know. The issue is the ones I see here tend to qualify the 'I don't know if there's a god'

yes, I don't know if there's god or not.
I think those who reject or accept the claim are wrong because we do not have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject God.

Workch:
yes, I don't know it there's god or not.
I think does who reject or accept the claim are wrong because we do not have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject God.

Since it’s a claim without evidence, the claim can be dismissed without evidence lol.

Workch:
yes, I don't know it there's god or not.
I think does who reject or accept the claim are wrong because we do not have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject God.

Do you have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject rlifht?

jaephoenix:

Do you have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject rlifht?

no I don't, it's why I neither accept nor reject it.

jaephoenix:

Do you have sufficient knowledge to either accept or reject rlifht?

do you have sufficient knowledge to reject it?

Workch:
no I don't, it's why I neither accept nor reject it.

Then you shouldn't put the word god, cos you have already qualified that being. That is what I said initially. The agnostics here have qualified and crystallized the being into a 'god'. The truth is, it may be rjhft or kahtev, but instead you chose the word 'god'
I see sometimes why y'all have run-ins with Maynmann

jaephoenix:

Then you shouldn't put the word god, cos you have already qualified that being. That is what I said initially. The agnostics here have qualified and crystallized the being into a 'god'. The truth is, it may be rjhft or kahtev, but instead you chose the word 'god'
I see sometimes why y'all have run-ins with Maynmann

I didn't make the word god, I don't know if it's god.

I am using the deistic term for it for you to understand what I am talking about.

It's not my word, it's the word of deists, atheists and theists. How else can I communicate with you if I don't use it.


How else do I communicate with you about aliens that we aren't sure of their existence if I don't use the word "alien".

How am I suppose to discuss dragons with you if I won't use the word dragons, even when there no evidence that they existed

Workch:
I didn't make the word god, I don't know if it's god.

I am using the deistic term for it for you to understand what I am talking about.

It's not my word, it's the word of deists, atheists and theists. How else to I communicate with you if I don't use it.


How else do I communicate with you about aliens that we aren't sure of their existence if I don't use the word "alien".

How am I suppose to discuss dragons with you if I won't use the word dragons, if when there no evidence that they existed

Good, Alien and dragons are title not a person, god is a title not a person.

Workch:
I didn't make the word god, I don't know if it's god.

I am using the deistic term for it for you to understand what I am talking about.

It's not my word, it's the word of deists, atheists and theists. How else to I communicate with you if I don't use it.


How else do I communicate with you about aliens that we aren't sure of their existence if I don't use the word "alien".

How am I suppose to discuss dragons with you if I won't use the word dragons, if when there no evidence that they existed

God are idols.

Workch:
do you have sufficient knowledge to reject it?

I don't have knowledge of their existence so it stays rejected til knowledge about its properties can be ascertained

Workch:
I didn't make the word god, I don't know if it's god.

I am using the deistic term for it for you to understand what I am talking about.

It's not my word, it's the word of deists, atheists and theists. How else can I communicate with you if I don't use it.


How else do I communicate with you about aliens that we aren't sure of their existence if I don't use the word "alien".

How am I suppose to discuss dragons with you if I won't use the word dragons, even when there no evidence that they existed

Okay, I understand your view point. Clearer now. Agnostism seems a 'softer' view than atheism

jaephoenix:

I don't have knowledge of their existence so it stays rejected til knowledge about its properties can be ascertained

Ok, it means that you are unscientific about your approach.

Because science doesn't reject until an evidence against is available.

Science is agnostic

jaephoenix:

Okay, I understand your view point. Clearer now. Agnostism seems a 'softer' view than atheism

No, not really. Agnostism doesn't take a position until evidence for or against is available.

Theism and atheism take positions from ignorance

Workch:
No, not really. Agnostism doesn't take a position until evidence for or against is available.

Theism and atheism take positions from ignorance

They took a position since they agreed that a “god” has the ABILITY to exist or not.
Does wolverine in xmen have the ABILITY to exist or not?
does yahweh in jewish books have the ABILITY to exist or not?

Workch:
Ok, it means that you are unscientific about your approach.

Because science doesn't reject until an evidence against is available.

Science is agnostic

Lol. Does science believe blue unicorns exist?

jaephoenix:

Lol. Does science believe blue unicorns exist?

We are talking about God and not unicorn.

Strawman fallacy

Workch:
We are talking about God and not unicorn.

Strawman fallacy

Just oblige me. You would understand my point
Yes or no

jaephoenix:

Just oblige me. You would understand my point
Yes or no

is there evidence for or against unicorns?

Workch:
is there evidence for or against unicorns?

Good.
Do you believe I flew to work in my wings this morning?

Workch:
We are talking about God and not unicorn.

Strawman fallacy

People can worship unicorn as their god.
god is a title not a person.

jaephoenix:

Good.
Do you believe I flew to work in my wings this morning?

People Can even worship unicorn as their god.