Agnostic

I think

Gotcha

Fence-sitter

I don't know if that describes all my postures, but at least most of them acording to a friend

Anything that we could define as god would need to be beyond the limits and bounds of the physical universe in order to be the creator of said universe.

Well, thats just the point of agnosticism i think

How could you (a material thing) know?

That's the point of Faith

You can't ever really be certain, logically

Yes you can

You can reason, understand it is *probable* that there is God

We have plenty of explanations that all support God

Basic logic is literally self-evident and completely objective

The only problem is that people aren't.

That's what metaphysics, faith, and theology are for

@Enryse

And there are plenty of explanations that doesnt support god, at the end is just "how can You proove that ot exists" and "how can You proove it doesnt"

Matter just 'existing' is equally as provable as it being created. God said he created everything, so he did. There's no reason to believe he's just assembling parts when all laws of reality are subject to his will.

@Enryse do you believe in the "burden of proof"?

If 'existing' is equally as provable as it being created.
And God exists.
God was created.

what's the burden of proof?

God wasn't created

Omg cunt people have legit answered that question in the year 8000BC

God is the unmoved mover

yes, the uncaused cause

Existence is what God creates, without God there is no existing

That the burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim, and without sufficient proof we should not accept the claim

sorry, i misunderstood one word in the fist sentence

on "'existing' is equally as provable as it being created."

unmoved mover, uncause causer, ok

so he wasn't created, that's what you are saying?

Yes

then, what makes you thing that we have been created?

Think of it this way. This is the material world. He created the material world from an immaterial world, like how we would create a computer which then creates a cyber world

Bit of a stretch, but you get the idea. There is no infinite circle where the immaterial then needs to be created, because it's not material - therefore nothing within it can be created

yeah, i understand, hes the programmer, that's also the way i see it

what do you define as inmaterial?

Something that can't be perceived with the 5 senses, however extreme they are

@The King Of Moab Well, the insufficiency of a proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exists, just that it cannot be proved with the current tools, that's why i think atheist are wrong

That's what you are saying?