The part where you said that I do know is false, as I have said that I don't know. Do you understand what "for the sake of this argument" means? I was just demonstrating that even IF what you said were true, it still wouldn't prove the existence of god. You keep repeating the same fallacious response. I'll keep correcting you. You'll eventually take off the blinders and understand how logic works. Not knowing something doesn't prove something else. You also seem to misunderstand what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who rejects the claim of a god. You don't need blind faith to reject a claim. You also misunderstand what agnosticism is. A(theism) is a non belief/belief. A(gnosticism) is what we don't know or know. For example, I am an agnostic atheist, which means that I don't know if there is a god and I don't believe in a god. You should really understand the argument of your opposition before starting an argument, or at least ask questions to understand the argument. I fully understand your argument because I used to make the same arguments. In other words, not only have you been wrong, you don't even know what you're wrong about.
First of all, according to Mirriam-Webster, the term agnostic means "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not, or a person who does not believe or is unsure of something". So if you say you don't know, and/or don't believe in God, that makes you an agnostic. On the other hand, atheist means "a disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism In other words, if you are an atheist, it means you believe there is no God. If you are an agnostic, it means you don't believe in God, or you don't know. See the difference? In other words, the agnostic says "I'm not buying it" when it comes to God, while the atheist is actively "selling" the idea that there is no god, or at least has "bought into" the notion that there is no god. Secondly, what we both proved together in our discussion, and what you said you agreed with, is that there must be something outside of science, or outside of the natural, physical world that science studies, to explain the existence of the universe. By definition, what is outside the natural is what we call supernatural, meaning above or beyond the natural universe. It seems that you don't want to call it "God", but you did seem to agree that there is some kind of supernatural entity that is behind the creation of the universe. To summarize: from science, we know that the universe (or "multiverse" as it's sometimes called today) includes all of matter, energy, space, and time. Therefore, nothing preceded it. And we agree that, as far as science is concerned, nothing comes from nothing. That leaves only the supernatural as a possibility. Science can only study the natural, physical universe. Therefore the answer must lie in the supernatural.
In other words. You don't know what you are talking about. Your M-W definition is another way of what I just said. See below. Oxford Dictionary - A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. An atheist does't believe that there is no god. An atheist doesn't believe in god. See and understand the difference? An atheist isn't "selling" the idea that there is no god. An atheist just isn't "buying" the claim of a god. Secondly, you keep repeating that I agreed to something that I didn't agree to. FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, I agreed. FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. I'm starting to doubt that you even have a degree if you don't understand the concept of agreeing for the sake of an argument. If I said that Santa Claus exists for the sake of the argument, I am not agreeing that Santa Claus exists. Once again, not knowing something doesn't prove the existence of something else.
Just know that no matter how many different logical ways you explain things to him he will just misinterpret or completely ignore it. No matter how many times he says his is "a respectful discussion, for those interested", he in no way meant for it to be a discussion, he wants to preach his belief and that is it. He claims to have a college degree, finished in the top 5% in high school but for some reason he can not put 2 and 2 together.
I'm completely aware of that, but I am having fun with this "debate." It's good practice for when I get into a real debate.
So, logically we proved the existence of a supernatural reality, and yet you try to dismiss it all with the words "for the sake of the argument". Huh?!?! Listen, if you want to deny the truth for your own personal reasons, that's your choice. But you cannot deny the validity of the conclusion we came to together in our discussion. You can't deny logic, reason, and common sense, not to mention the most basic, fundamental laws of science. Doing so is the very definition of being irrational.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Hitler was catholic. Dictatorships with or without religion are shitty places to live. Next! You really suck at this.
The only part about your statement that we proved the existence of a supernatural reality is that we didn't prove the existence of a supernatural reality. If you don't understand what the term "for the sake of the argument" means, we got bigger problems than you believing in a wizard who sent himself in the form of another wizard to save us from his own faulty wizardry. Keep trying.
Since some people on here don't acknowledge rational explanations using science, I will try to reach them through their own language, Google images.....lol. I'm finding out on here that deeply-ingrained propaganda and closed minds are extremely hard to counter, even with science, reason, and logic! smh.
It's tough to have a discussion with someone who won't acknowledge a truth that arises logically from science and reason. It's frustrating. Instead, I get ridiculous replies like this one: OK, I'll play along......Obama is really a muslim terrorist, 9/11 was all a conspiracy, the holocaust never happened, and I was abducted by UFO's. LOL. (once again, you are mistaking agnosticism for atheism. Atheism is the assertion that there is no god, while agnosticism says that we don't know if god exists.) But hey, you're batting .333 I guess, 1 out of 3 correct statements, that's not too bad! lol.
Are you one of those looney tunes who believes that there's no such thing as truth, that nothing can be known, that we might all be living in a dream world and dreaming every night our actual reality....lol. Please tell me you don't actually believe that nonsense! (and don't laugh, there are actually people out there who believe these things!)
