That's an excellent observation you just made!
It all boils down to a question of worldview, which everyone
has, a set of belief system with which we view the world and make
sense of things. Do you now finally get the whole point I have been
trying to make all this while?
The atheist's worldview is closely tied to naturalism. This
worldview colors everything he sees. No supernatural explanation or
causation is allowed into his way of explaining any phenomenon he
encounters. It can and must only be explained by or away in
naturalistic ways. If there's no naturalistic explanation now, one
will come up later eventually, by faith it will come. Even if it is
ridiculous the naturalistic explanation must be maintained.
The theist's worldview is not restricted to our five
senses. Effects can have both natural or supernatural causes.
Theism recognises that natural causes are incapable of doing
certain things, and that certain effects are best explained by
intelligence, even a supernatural one.
It all boils down to which worldview is the best worldview to
view the world with. And when you do take the time to seriously and
critically compare the ability of the two worldviews of atheism and
theism to explain and account for the questions of utmost
significance you will realise that theism wins handsdown.
i dont believe in a best worldview.... i only believe it
subjectively... there's no best worldview across board for everyone
imo... dont word bash me for that for thats what i believe and im
entitled to my own belief as much as anyone else here. The way your
post is constructed is as though the naturalistic view is
ridiculous, but thats to u, a theist.
But for jacky, someone who doesn't believe, yours is just also
equally ridiculous. Much as been exchanged and said and much
logical sense has been appealed across both sides which was
conveniently dismissed by both ends.
This is why i asked jacky to stop wasting his breath for he
would not subject to your belief and you would too not subject to
his. In which how the engages went seemed more like name calling
and seemed more like trying to force belief into each other.
Lastly, i feel that you've been making alot of assumptions about
the theist war over atheist war. Lemme reiterate that whatever
prove you have raised, it could be biased and it is not absolute in
proving god's existence. The only time when theism wins hands down,
is when u bring god upon everyone for them to see... but that has
apparently yet to happen, no prove no evidence. The same old
question stands... much as atheist cant disprove the existence of
god, you cant prove yours. Dont be too quick to say you are winning
hands down. It shows nothing objective, other than a desire to
win.
