Can we admit that agnosticism is the logical way of thinking?

Well I can assume we can travel faster than the speed of light, but since we haven't, it's truth.

Okay gotcha

 

Oh I don't know if that is truth or not. I don't know how to do it nor do I know anyone that does. But I don't think truth fits in this. It's just incomplete knowledge.

 

Well I don't know anyone that produced life without life, nor have empirical observation of singularity and movement faster than the speed of light. How can you skew this to your benefit then?

 

This is a bunch of crap. Obviously, you are trying to make an excuse that this cannot be observed. Problem... If it's not observable, then it's purely "hypothetical".

 

We also know that the math works and supports the hypothesis. So although we do not have definitive proof, we have a hypothesis driven by science, and math that backs up that hypothesis. So the math, is at least partial evidence that that the hypothesis is legitimate, even without waiting out the million years.

Then there is the question of what is life. We are getting closer and closer to developing real AI that self replicates. Does that count?

But none of that means that god does or does not exist. Lets say tomorrow that scientists announce that they made life just from the right ingredients, the religious would say that god provided the conditions and the template for life so in the end, it still is gods creation. There is no response to that. If you choose to believe in an all powerful god, then there does not exist anything that can disprove the all powerful.

Disproving G is impossible if G is all powerful. But I, along with many atheists, suggest that we do not need to disprove G, we simply need see some tiny shred of evidence, otherwise there is nothing to reach the level of even contemplation. I believe in the chair I'm sitting in, I believe that planes can fly at 35,000 feet. I don't believe that there is a monkey with 210 boobs or that there is a god. I can't prove a 210 boobed monkey isn't swinging a very milky path through a jungle right now. But there is no need to prove that, since it's a ridiculous notion. It's possible, but without proof, so unlikely that it reaches a level of unlikeliness that I can say I don't believe in the super-multi-titted-monkey.

 

With my definition? I am using the Webster's Dictionary. I am also using the definition set forth by "Atheism.org"; the biggest atheist website out there.

 

I actually think that God already did this. Have been saying this for a while. I am saying or agreeing that evolution is a very real possibility; but was designed.

 

Damned if I know. Nor do I know how we got this far down this trail.

 

Yes. But being red has been observed... Next?

 

But you can observe that specific light if you want to. You cannot observe singularity, nor life being created without life.

 

you are reading stuff into the definition that does not exist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

it just says a disbelief, in other words, not believing in. It does not say certainty that there does not exist. An atheist simply does not believe in god. you are assuming more than that. You are assuming to know what belief is verses knowing. I don't know, but I believe. I don't know, but I don't believe.

And from Atheists.org this is what it says

 

Scientists theorized for 40+ years about the existence of the Higgs-Bozon. There was no way to see, touch, smell, or observe it until last year. But the math worked, so many people BELIEVED the Bozon to exist. They never had proof, but they did have evidence in the way of math and how other particles acted to suggest the existence. Now, we developed a way to observe the Bozon, and guess what, we now know it exists.

 

Well how convenient. To disbelieve? LMAO Let's look that up shall we?


doubt - discredit
Have no faith in God, spiritual beings, or a religious system.
Be unable to believe (someone or something).

What's the difference?

 

That particle is what theorized the expansion of the universe; but it is only a theory. And tell me how this observation explains the expansion again?

Also, do you believe mass is eternal?

 

Maybe Peele did? I think there is more support that a designer is needed than by chance.

AND you can say this can be observed, but it hasn't, therefor life without life hasn't been observed. Fill me in when science has, then we can talk.

 

The difference is simple. There is no belief in the existence, but that does not mean that we know for certain, just that there is no reason to give any respect to the concept of god. As I said, I don't know there is not a 210 boobed monkey. But without something to make me think its a possibility I just don't believe.

There are some things that have an answer. 2 plus 2 is 4. I can say I don't believe it is 7.8, but I can also say I know that 2+2 does not equal 7.8 because there is an answer that can be had. With God, there is no possible final answer because there is no way to prove that something (anything) does not exist. Try and prove that unicorns don'e exist in alternate universes. There is no way for you to look, no way for you to know.