This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe
Atheism is a metaphysical claim.
You're confusing two different things. Asserting that deities don't exist is a metaphysical claim. Stating that 'I don't believe in deities because there's no compelling evidence to support it' isn't a metaphysical claim.
Atheism is a position regarding lack of belief, not an assertion about the existence of deities.
J-M - It's Scientism.
What's with all the labels you put on things?
Oh, god, why am I entering into these pointless discussions? Okay, I'm bored...nothing else.
Because if you want to reach truth you need clear definitions.
Do you agree?
The moment you make a claim to the effect that "god IS ...", it falls into the scope of science. If you stick to the realm of possibilities, then you are discussing metaphysics. it's that simple. You are misrepresenting what metaphysics is.
The moment you make a claim to the effect that "god IS ...", it falls into the scope of science.
Sorry, but you have no idea what the scientific method is.
If you stick to the realm of possibilities, then you are discussing metaphysics. it's that simple.
You are misrepresenting what metaphysics is.
Sorry but you have no idea what metaphysics is.
Can you imagine the defense case to this O.P in a court of law?
In a court of law only certain evidence can be used as admisabe evidence.
This thread is all about inadmissible evidence, to refute the O.Ps claim.
John Mann "Judge ,content of court, declined" because " I object your honor this thread has yet to present evidence that refute the "O.P" ? Evidence which is the claim and all the evidence us believers need to believe"
The Judge ( confused by the above comment) replies " John" to clarify the O.P. requires:-
A) a scientifically proven answer?
B) answers of fact?
Case closed but thread continues...