This is an argument of agnosticism, "we don't know" But earlier said, it can't be proven but points there isn't a creator, a different arg.
-
-
Replying to @yungharaambae
I didn't say points to no creator, I said it offers an explanation of the existence of the universe without invoking a creator. Big diff
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queklot
I understand where you're coming from now. But I would call it a rather subtle difference, but that's just semantics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungharaambae
In a sense it is like deism vs theism, both accept a creator but deists believe he does not interfere with the universe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queklot
That was my primary argument. Quantum physics and big bang provides many challenges for atheists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungharaambae
That's what I was initially saying, but it also doesn't help theists much. Deists, imo, have the upper hand when it comes to this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queklot
It's a type of argument most useful against new atheists who actively try to use science to disprove God like Dawkins and Harris.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yungharaambae
I think you're using a strawman. Most new atheists attempt to disprove religion and focus on that. You can disprove claims claimed by
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queklot
religion through science. Of course, religion could simply be misinterpreted (benefit of the doubt), but God is not so much their focus
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queklot
Factually untrue. Dawkins most famous book is entitled "The God Delusion" Harris has a book, "The End of Faith" (presumably in God he means)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
And in that book, Dawkins has his scale on which he, and most of us, identify as a 6.pic.twitter.com/jKVJoGaFdQ
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.