Evidence isn't necessarily air-tight proof. They actually used to think that life spontaneously arose. Then they put some meat in a container so flies couldn't get in to lay their eggs and they found no maggots.
I don't think you're arguing the agnostic position, though. You're lacking the ability to recognize 'faith', and also the ability to realize that it's OK not to know, and not to 'believe' one way of the other.
agnosticism pretty much invalidates faith. faith is just belief without sufficient reason anyway. I can certainly recognize that. actually that's exactly what I was saying. MarAzul was the one claiming you either have to believe this or that, not allowing for "we don't know". maybe i'm crossing over from stuff posted in the Jesus thread that you haven't read.
Completely incorrect, from an intellectual viewpoint. Agnosticism doesn't invalidate anything, or validate anything, that can't be proven through the scientific method. Again, it's OK to admit you don't know about things without believing if they exist, or don't exist.
BS! MarAzul certainly did not claim you have to believe anything. You should add, you are in error to your position of "I don't know".
faith is a claim to knowledge. agnosticism is the position that knowledge is not possible. the are not compatible.
Atheism is also a claim of knowledge. Now you are getting somewhere! So agnosticism invalidates both faith in theism or faith in atheism. Got it!!!
agnosticism is technically not compatible with the strong form of atheism, true. an agnostic would consider a either convinced theist or a strong atheist to be misguided. of course most people who call themselves atheists are not of the strong persuasion, but no sense rehashing semantics with you or PapaG. doesn't really matter.
I'll catch up on this thread. I've been stuck in the 3rd dimension lately. Which reminds me to mow the lawn tomorrow. Then I'll return to the 7th dimension and educate all of you.
Bump. Dr. S. James Gates is the first person to surprise/stump Neil: The strands of computer codes that are identical to the web correcting codes in web browsers.......... oO
This post deserves its own thread. I'm not sure where the discussion will go, but it's just a fascinating concept to contemplate. I think the easiest way to discount this belief is to say string theory is is just a theory, and has a long way to be proven as the correct explanation of quantum gravity. Or, even if you believe in string theory: It's a theory who's equations are built by man, so perhaps the equation is not as elegant as it one day may be. It's in the sloppy excess of the equation that we find superfluous information, derived by man, that mimics computer code. Think of many modern day things made by man, they are constructed out of other things made by man. A nut or bolt from a dishwasher may also be used in a some rollerblades. And certainly the ideas from one could be found in the other, the helical threads of a screw, the bearings in the wheels, etc. So perhaps, the computer codes in String theory are derived from the simple nature that man is creating the equations and man is flawed. On the other hand, this could be true and we could be living in the matrix.
http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/jgates.html His supersymmetry equations and theory in detail.
