Theist logic
09 Jan '06 22:23Originally posted by scottishinnz
Thank you for making, well, not a single decent point. I'm glad to see your buddies gave you lots of recs for it. That'll make you sleep better at night.
Stick to begging the question. Sarcasm isn't working for you.
Anyhoo, I have not made god 'guilty by association'
It's precisely what you've done. That and begging the question sums up your entire OP.
I have merely asked you, mr stong-in-faith, how you make a distinction between two things, neither of which you have any evidence for existing?
Sir...sir...put the loaded question down and back away.
Of course, you know, as I do, that there is no way of providing arguments that he doesn't exist.
There are, but they all suck. Mostly the skeptics nowadays just whine about alleged Bible contradictions and how God let them stub their toes yesterday.
We also both know that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained without the necessity to invoke god.
The facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection can't be explained without invoking God.
1) Died and was buried in rich man's tomb.
2) Tomb became empty.
3) Post-mortem appearances.
4) Changed lives of apostles, in particular their willingness to die proclaiming Jesus' bodily resurrection.
So no, I clearly "know" more than you. 😉
I view god as a fantastical claim, for which there is no evidence, the same way I view all these other things.
I think you need better seats, 'cause your view sucks.
Maybe a more basal question is 'if you allow god into your world view, do any other rules or laws continue to be definite?'
It's only in a theistic universe that laws can be expected to remain definite. Why is gravity at the strength it is? Is there something responsible for it or is it random? If it's random, then why can't it change tomorrow? Thanks for pointing out an absurdity of your own worldview.
God could, for example, suspend gravity. Or time. Or any number of these things.
He could, but He won't. He's a God of order. Which is why there are laws in the first place.
These rules would effectively stop being rules. They'd become only mere descriptions of the past - without any predictive value in a universe that can fundamentally change at any given moment. If you drop a cup you'd expect it to fall to the ground and shatter, yes? What if you dropped it now and it levitated in mid air? The law of gravity would be meaningless.
What's ironic is you're describing what would be a very possible state of affairs if God didn't exist. If the universe and its constants appeared at random, why can't they randomly change?
Why is the concept of my right pinky finger stopping trains stupid, but a guy walking on water not stupid then?
Because there would be no context to your right pinky finger stopping trains. No claiming God did it, we're just supposed to accept that you, a mere mortal, did what is currently impossible. Jesus walked on water with the claim that His miracles were of God. Jesus also evidenced that He really did walk on water by rising from the dead.
How can you prove that god is not merely a human conception? What supporting evidence do you have that cannot be explained without invoking god?
1)The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
2)The source of morality.
3)Biblical prophecy
Just to name a few.
What evidence do you have the none of the others are real?
That's the thing. I don't care if they're real or not. I quite simply lack belief in them. You skeptics bely your real concern when you argue with theists all the time about something you adamantly deny is true.
Fine tuning of the universe? Easy - anthropic principle. Look it up. It's called circular reasoning.
It's called appeal to vagueness to avoid getting into damning specifics.
The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Here's an analogy to display why:
Suppose a man is condemned to die by firing squad. He's placed against a wall and a few dozen sharpshooters line up to execute him. At the count of three they all open fire. When the smoke clears, the man is left standing, not a bullet touching him. By your logic, we're supposed to say "Well, we don't need an explanation for why the man is still alive, because he wouldn't be alive unless whatever happened happened." It's absurd not to demand a reason why he's still standing and the odds of it occurring are astronomical.
The Kalam argument fails immediately, in that it is impossible to prove that the universe has not existed forever. Sure there may have been the big bang, but what was before it? Time didn't exist before it, according to current scientific thought, so the universe has existed forever.
That's pure idiocy. Space didn't exist either, genius. No matter. No mass. Nothing. Everything came into existince at the Big Bang. You have to tell me why.
I second question, in response to the Kalam argument then.. Why does the universe require a creator, but god does not?
Science demands that everything that begins to exist should have a cause. God never began to exist. The universe did.
Come on, I'd like to hear 'evidence' of god, better than the circular reasoned crap that you've already served up. btw, I've never played halo and i don't have a cell phone.
What exactly was circular about the arguments I made? And I bet you're a Half Life man.
Oh, and I don't have a wife either.
Are you hitting on me?
My question of why believe one thing and not another is not loaded.
Your question was "why believe on thing that has no evidence and not another?" You loaded it with the assertion that there was no evidence for what I believe, so if I answered it as was, I was tacitly admitting that there was indeed no evidence.
It is a valid question - why not try something novel and actually answer it?
Saying confidently that it wasn't a logical fallacy won't make the fact that it was disappear, Scotty.
Why do you believe in god but not the tooth fairy?
Why do you believe in determinism and concurrently believe that you arrived to your beliefs through reason?
Projecting? perhaps, but so far you have provided no solid evidence for either god, nor disproved santa. So how can you make a logical distinction? Or, no, wait, let me guess, you're going to avoid the question again...
I've provided evidence, you just think that waving it away like it means nothing is an actual rebuttal. Deal with the data, Scotty. Be a man.
Are you seriously suggesting that god is mute?
Not seriously.
Or perhaps he doesn't care to talk to you.
What's your hang up on communication being audible?
Perhaps he doesn't exist.
Perhaps you think this is a strong argument. It isn't.
How do you distinguish?
Distinguish between what?
Fell free to call me a bigot or whatever name you wish. You obviously know all about me, my politics, my thoughts and all the other things I've done in my life. oh wait, nope, that was sarcasm.
Ok, I'll "fell" free to.
So what direct evidence do you have that god did create the planet then?
You seem to think that Young Earth creationism is the only or even predominant view among Christians. It isn't.
0.000% life on planets? Well, that's us stuffed then.
We both spoke as though we weren't including Earth.
What proof do you have to deny the existance of extraterrestrial life? Nasa seems to think it's a worthwhile search.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/0801frozenworlds.html
(for example, amongst others)
I need to prove a negative? How about the complete lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life? If there is some. Please provide it other than by saying "Gee, there sure are a lot of rocks out there."
I don't believe my last sentence was a false dichotomy. There is no direct proof of any of the first group, and therefore none of them fall within 'science' - hence the logic and reason statement.
Again you beg the question.
By the way, science is not synonymous with logic or reason. Nor is it the exclusive domain of either.
Thank you for making, well, not a single decent point. I'm glad to see your buddies gave you lots of recs for it. That'll make you sleep better at night.
Stick to begging the question. Sarcasm isn't working for you.
Anyhoo, I have not made god 'guilty by association'
It's precisely what you've done. That and begging the question sums up your entire OP.
I have merely asked you, mr stong-in-faith, how you make a distinction between two things, neither of which you have any evidence for existing?
Sir...sir...put the loaded question down and back away.
Of course, you know, as I do, that there is no way of providing arguments that he doesn't exist.
There are, but they all suck. Mostly the skeptics nowadays just whine about alleged Bible contradictions and how God let them stub their toes yesterday.
We also both know that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained without the necessity to invoke god.
The facts surrounding Jesus' resurrection can't be explained without invoking God.
1) Died and was buried in rich man's tomb.
2) Tomb became empty.
3) Post-mortem appearances.
4) Changed lives of apostles, in particular their willingness to die proclaiming Jesus' bodily resurrection.
So no, I clearly "know" more than you. 😉
I view god as a fantastical claim, for which there is no evidence, the same way I view all these other things.
I think you need better seats, 'cause your view sucks.
Maybe a more basal question is 'if you allow god into your world view, do any other rules or laws continue to be definite?'
It's only in a theistic universe that laws can be expected to remain definite. Why is gravity at the strength it is? Is there something responsible for it or is it random? If it's random, then why can't it change tomorrow? Thanks for pointing out an absurdity of your own worldview.
God could, for example, suspend gravity. Or time. Or any number of these things.
He could, but He won't. He's a God of order. Which is why there are laws in the first place.
These rules would effectively stop being rules. They'd become only mere descriptions of the past - without any predictive value in a universe that can fundamentally change at any given moment. If you drop a cup you'd expect it to fall to the ground and shatter, yes? What if you dropped it now and it levitated in mid air? The law of gravity would be meaningless.
What's ironic is you're describing what would be a very possible state of affairs if God didn't exist. If the universe and its constants appeared at random, why can't they randomly change?
Why is the concept of my right pinky finger stopping trains stupid, but a guy walking on water not stupid then?
Because there would be no context to your right pinky finger stopping trains. No claiming God did it, we're just supposed to accept that you, a mere mortal, did what is currently impossible. Jesus walked on water with the claim that His miracles were of God. Jesus also evidenced that He really did walk on water by rising from the dead.
How can you prove that god is not merely a human conception? What supporting evidence do you have that cannot be explained without invoking god?
1)The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
2)The source of morality.
3)Biblical prophecy
Just to name a few.
What evidence do you have the none of the others are real?
That's the thing. I don't care if they're real or not. I quite simply lack belief in them. You skeptics bely your real concern when you argue with theists all the time about something you adamantly deny is true.
Fine tuning of the universe? Easy - anthropic principle. Look it up. It's called circular reasoning.
It's called appeal to vagueness to avoid getting into damning specifics.
The anthropic principle is ridiculous. Here's an analogy to display why:
Suppose a man is condemned to die by firing squad. He's placed against a wall and a few dozen sharpshooters line up to execute him. At the count of three they all open fire. When the smoke clears, the man is left standing, not a bullet touching him. By your logic, we're supposed to say "Well, we don't need an explanation for why the man is still alive, because he wouldn't be alive unless whatever happened happened." It's absurd not to demand a reason why he's still standing and the odds of it occurring are astronomical.
The Kalam argument fails immediately, in that it is impossible to prove that the universe has not existed forever. Sure there may have been the big bang, but what was before it? Time didn't exist before it, according to current scientific thought, so the universe has existed forever.
That's pure idiocy. Space didn't exist either, genius. No matter. No mass. Nothing. Everything came into existince at the Big Bang. You have to tell me why.
I second question, in response to the Kalam argument then.. Why does the universe require a creator, but god does not?
Science demands that everything that begins to exist should have a cause. God never began to exist. The universe did.
Come on, I'd like to hear 'evidence' of god, better than the circular reasoned crap that you've already served up. btw, I've never played halo and i don't have a cell phone.
What exactly was circular about the arguments I made? And I bet you're a Half Life man.
Oh, and I don't have a wife either.
Are you hitting on me?
My question of why believe one thing and not another is not loaded.
Your question was "why believe on thing that has no evidence and not another?" You loaded it with the assertion that there was no evidence for what I believe, so if I answered it as was, I was tacitly admitting that there was indeed no evidence.
It is a valid question - why not try something novel and actually answer it?
Saying confidently that it wasn't a logical fallacy won't make the fact that it was disappear, Scotty.
Why do you believe in god but not the tooth fairy?
Why do you believe in determinism and concurrently believe that you arrived to your beliefs through reason?
Projecting? perhaps, but so far you have provided no solid evidence for either god, nor disproved santa. So how can you make a logical distinction? Or, no, wait, let me guess, you're going to avoid the question again...
I've provided evidence, you just think that waving it away like it means nothing is an actual rebuttal. Deal with the data, Scotty. Be a man.
Are you seriously suggesting that god is mute?
Not seriously.
Or perhaps he doesn't care to talk to you.
What's your hang up on communication being audible?
Perhaps he doesn't exist.
Perhaps you think this is a strong argument. It isn't.
How do you distinguish?
Distinguish between what?
Fell free to call me a bigot or whatever name you wish. You obviously know all about me, my politics, my thoughts and all the other things I've done in my life. oh wait, nope, that was sarcasm.
Ok, I'll "fell" free to.
So what direct evidence do you have that god did create the planet then?
You seem to think that Young Earth creationism is the only or even predominant view among Christians. It isn't.
0.000% life on planets? Well, that's us stuffed then.
We both spoke as though we weren't including Earth.
What proof do you have to deny the existance of extraterrestrial life? Nasa seems to think it's a worthwhile search.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/0801frozenworlds.html
(for example, amongst others)
I need to prove a negative? How about the complete lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life? If there is some. Please provide it other than by saying "Gee, there sure are a lot of rocks out there."
I don't believe my last sentence was a false dichotomy. There is no direct proof of any of the first group, and therefore none of them fall within 'science' - hence the logic and reason statement.
Again you beg the question.
By the way, science is not synonymous with logic or reason. Nor is it the exclusive domain of either.
Back to Top