Atheistforums.com

From the comments I have seen from the atheists on this board questioning the sanity of theists, bashing theism from pillar to post I'd have to think the majority are 99.9999% sure there is no Creator of the universe with about as much certainty as there is no Santa Claus.

"Creator" and "creation" are the wrong ontological categories.  And yes, Santa Claus does certainly exist ... as an meme.  But then we have to get into what is "exist" vs "not exist".  Not even philosophers agree on that.  So while a theist, I can't accept conventional theology, I have to be a heretic, or an atheist.  I choose to be a heretic ... because I find atheism (and epiphenomenalism) as implausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I am frankly appaled there is no 99.76% option.

No seriously, to put a number on it? What is the point drew?
I am not certain your creator god doesn't exist. I am only certain I've not seen any 'evidence' or even a reason why he should that sways me to be convinced of That claim.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 09, 2017, 04:18:40 PM
I am frankly appaled there is no 99.76% option.

No seriously, to put a number on it? What is the point drew?
I am not certain your creator god doesn't exist. I am only certain I've not seen any 'evidence' or even a reason why he should that sways me to be convinced of That claim.

The point is many of the atheists in this forum state atheism as a well established fact not a counter belief to theism. I see facts and evidence of both beliefs as well as reasons to doubt either claim. I'm not convinced we owe our existence to mindless forces that caused themselves, the universe and us to exist all by sheer happenstance. Of course I could be wrong. I'm about 55% sure we owe our existence to a Creator. I've previously stated facts that would change my mind. I might flip and be 55% convinced there is no Creator of the universe.

Defining God as Creator of the universe doesn't define what God is, but what he does.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 04:39:37 PM
The point is many of the atheists in this forum state atheism as a well established fact not a counter belief to theism. I see facts and evidence of both beliefs as well as reasons to doubt either claim. I'm not convinced we owe our existence to mindless forces that caused themselves, the universe and us to exist all by sheer happenstance. Of course I could be wrong. I'm about 55% sure we owe our existence to a Creator. I've previously stated facts that would change my mind. I might flip and be 55% convinced there is no Creator of the universe.

Then why not add a 100% in your poll?
Because you see, I don't know if it's you that has a bias, or me (or maybe both of us) but I think most atheists here would concider themselves 'weak atheists' and not 'strong atheists'. There will be exceptions, of course, but I personally think they are a minorty and few stretches too far to be called 'many'. Now, I could be mistaken. But I've been here for a while now, and I really don't think so.

In any case, putting a number on 'how certain' you are and showing it to you doesn't accomplish anything, then, now does it? If Munch and I say 99.99% and Cavebear says 80% and Shiranu and Unbeliever say 90%, what does that tell you?
You still have the fact that none of them believe the god claim, no matter how strongly they believe to feel about that. And isn't the reason for coming to that conclusion much more interesting and important?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 09, 2017, 05:26:34 PM
Then why not add a 100% in your poll?
Because you see, I don't know if it's you that has a bias, or me (or maybe both of us) but I think most atheists here would concider themselves 'weak atheists' and not 'strong atheists'. There will be exceptions, of course, but I personally think they are a minorty and few stretches too far to be called 'many'. Now, I could be mistaken. But I've been here for a while now, and I really don't think so.

In any case, putting a number on 'how certain' you are and showing it to you doesn't accomplish anything, then, now does it? If Munch and I say 99.99% and Cavebear says 80% and Shiranu and Unbeliever say 90%, what does that tell you?
You still have the fact that none of them believe the god claim, no matter how strongly they believe to feel about that. And isn't the reason for coming to that conclusion much more interesting and important?

We all like to be right so naturally we're a bit biased toward whatever we believe. I'm assuming no one can be 100% sure but so far 3 responded and chose 99.9999 which is odd but not unexpected. This is a measure of faith not a reflection of facts and evidence. Whenever I question folks in this board some of whom posted 99% they admit they don't know how the universe came into existence. They don't know if time always existed. They don't know if a singularity existed. They don't know why the laws of physics allow for planets, stars, solar systems and ultimately life to exist. In spite of this lack of knowledge they claim to be 99.9999 % certain no God or god's involved.

I can't tell who answered the poll but suppose you responded 99% but later in a discussion you say I don't claim God doesn't exist I just lack that belief I'd remind you are you're a 99 percenter. I'm a theist yet I'm no where close to 99% certain we owe our existence to a Creator because I don't know with any certainty how the state of affairs we observe came about. Do you?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 06:00:45 PM
We all like to be right so naturally we're a bit biased toward whatever we believe. I'm assuming no one can be 100% sure but so far 3 responded and chose 99.9999 which is odd but not unexpected. This is a measure of faith not a reflection of facts and evidence. Whenever I question folks in this board some of whom posted 99% they admit they don't know how the universe came into existence. They don't know if time always existed. They don't know if a singularity existed. They don't know why the laws of physics allow for planets, stars, solar systems and ultimately life to exist. In spite of this lack of knowledge they claim to be 99.9999 % certain no God or god's involved.

I can't tell who answered the poll but suppose you responded 99% but later in a discussion you say I don't claim God doesn't exist I just lack that belief I'd remind you are you're a 99 percenter. I'm a theist yet I'm no where close to 99% certain we owe our existence to a Creator because I don't know with any certainty how the state of affairs we observe came about. Do you?

I might feel relatively certain that my neighbour didn't climb into my backyard when I was at work, layed a massive dump, cleaned it back up, taking all the evidence back with him, and went home. I might even subjectively put a number on that; say 99%. (Though the number is arbitrary, useless and void. In truth: Either you are certain of  something or you are not. Any number you stick on in is a subjective and personal interpretation of the validness of whatever you are leaning to, more akin to an emotional, subconscience and uncontroleable point of view rather than an objective marking we can or even try to use as a standardized comparison and justified dispotion based on logic and reason.)
I'm still not going to go around 'claiming' my neighbour definitely didn't shit in my backyard. I'm not even going to claim I have good reason to think he didn't. I'm just not going to have good reason to think he does. And if you, a complete stranger, tell me you are convinced of the supposed events on my grass, I'm going to ask you to prove it. I have no intent in making my life more difficult unless you can show me a good reason.
In the conversation, I might say 'I don't believe you. I know my neighbor. I know he didn't shit in my backyard.' By saying that, I don't litteraly mean I have actual evidence that my neighbor, in fact, didn't use my yard when nature called. Rather, I mean that there is no good reason to think that he did, so I'm not making the assumption that he did.

I'm tired and off to bed. I'll see if I can check in with this thread tomorrow or something.

I constantly marvel in awe that things like us can exist in such a universe as we seem to find ourselves in. None of us asked to be here, but here we are. None of us knows how or why, none of us know the rules,  but assuming that "God did it" pretty much puts a stop to further research, since we already know the answer - God did it. So we'll accept an answer that we cannot have confidence in because we have no reliable way to test the hypothesis. So we'll never come to an answer that we can have at least some confidence in. The scientific method isn't the best way to get reliable answers to our most fundamental questions - it's the only way.

And even if there were a creator God, none of us can know anything at all about it. I can guarantee it wasn't the God that's depicted in the Bible - the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.

So, if you think there is/was/might-have-been/maybe such a creator God, tell us a bit about it - what is it like, how can you know anything at all about it? Does it communicate with humans? Does it wish to be worshiped? Can it cure my ignorance?

And if we can't know anything at all about it - what good is it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Which god? Just any god in general? If you give me a specific god, I'll tell you how likely I personally think it is that they exist. Zeus? As close to 0% as I can reasonably get. The Biblical gods? 0.5%. Some vaguely defined monotheist god? Maybe 10%. If the world around us is anything to go by, though, he's most likely not a benevolent one and not worthy of worship.

I am 100% that there is no "god" as defined as the creator of the universe. Being said "god" is also by common definition of every known religion also having interest in human affairs and also determines human affairs and also demands or request to some measure a degree of supplication from its "subjects."

So the common definition of god is nonsensical blabber and whether there is a creator of the universe of not is not part of the equation as any definition of god requires certain elements that eliminates the possibility of the accidental creator or the ambivalent one which I have no problem with until someone thinks it demands humans pay some type of homage.

100% certain there are no god(s).

I don't believe in 100% certainty of no god-like deities existing, that simply is not a statement we can make as humans, but I am 100% that the gods as we know them are non-existent, particularly the Abrahamic trio. I think if anything comes remotely close, it would be the Shinto animism or Buddhist "god-but-not-really" (or even the Hindu concept of Brahmin)... both of which are more states of mind and interpreting the universe rather than concrete beings like Yahweh, Allah, God.

Of course, if I had a choice... probably the Zoroastrian faith would be in my top 3 wanting to be real. The focus on good vs evil, of the Fravashi who act as guardian angels and absorb the good energy of the good deeds we do to fight evil in the supernatural realm, and to transfer that good energy from our soul to the next souls born 4 days after our death so that they can continue the fight against evil... how can you not love that? It turns being good into a divine act of fighting evil of an unfathomable scale, yet every the most smallest act of kindness being important in this war against evil... it is, in my opinion, perhaps one of the most beautiful ideologies ever invented in human history.

It's far more beautiful than Christianities' obsession with saving ourselves, anyways.

Quote from: Shiranu on September 09, 2017, 09:00:26 PMOf course, if I had a choice... probably the Zoroastrian faith would be in my top 3 wanting to be real. The focus on good vs evil, of the Fravashi who act as guardian angels and absorb the good energy of the good deeds we do to fight evil in the supernatural realm, and to transfer that good energy from our soul to the next souls born 4 days after our death so that they can continue the fight against evil... how can you not love that? It turns being good into a divine act of fighting evil of an unfathomable scale, yet every the most smallest act of kindness being important in this war against evil... it is, in my opinion, perhaps one of the most beautiful ideologies ever invented in human history.

If I had a choice, I would go with something extremely similar to the Cult Mechanicus.  This bizarre Martian cult literally worships knowledge and views machines positively as more efficient vessels of knowledge.  The cult treats machines as if they were living entities whose needs must be tended rather than inert matter.  The faithful try to discover and gather every scrap of knowledge they possibly can, seeking to better themselves and become more like the Machine God.

That or the Drowned God religion.  Just a whole lot less violent.  I would definitely nix the whole baptism-by-drowning thing.  (It's only a temporary drowning...usually)  But yeah, some kind of Norse-ish religion centered around the sea/water would be great.

I'm also open to pagan/animistic practices.  The natural world as spiritual entities with wills of their own to be entreated and respected.  Quite a fascinating concept.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 09, 2017, 06:26:34 PM
I might feel relatively certain that my neighbour didn't climb into my backyard when I was at work, layed a massive dump, cleaned it back up, taking all the evidence back with him, and went home. I might even subjectively put a number on that; say 99%. (Though the number is arbitrary, useless and void. In truth: Either you are certain of  something or you are not. Any number you stick on in is a subjective and personal interpretation of the validness of whatever you are leaning to, more akin to an emotional, subconscience and uncontroleable point of view rather than an objective marking we can or even try to use as a standardized comparison and justified dispotion based on logic and reason.)
I'm still not going to go around 'claiming' my neighbour definitely didn't shit in my backyard. I'm not even going to claim I have good reason to think he didn't. I'm just not going to have good reason to think he does. And if you, a complete stranger, tell me you are convinced of the supposed events on my grass, I'm going to ask you to prove it. I have no intent in making my life more difficult unless you can show me a good reason.
In the conversation, I might say 'I don't believe you. I know my neighbor. I know he didn't shit in my backyard.' By saying that, I don't litteraly mean I have actual evidence that my neighbor, in fact, didn't use my yard when nature called. Rather, I mean that there is no good reason to think that he did, so I'm not making the assumption that he did.

I'm tired and off to bed. I'll see if I can check in with this thread tomorrow or something.

Judging from your disgusting analogy I don't think you're remotely interested in a genuine dialog. I know the favorite hobby horse of atheists is there is no evidence of a Creator (according to atheists of course). There is a thread in here called Goddidit VS Naturedidit you can read all about the case in favor of theism not that it will make any difference.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 09, 2017, 06:47:11 PM
I constantly marvel in awe that things like us can exist in such a universe as we seem to find ourselves in. None of us asked to be here, but here we are. None of us knows how or why, none of us know the rules,  but assuming that "God did it" pretty much puts a stop to further research, since we already know the answer - God did it. So we'll accept an answer that we cannot have confidence in because we have no reliable way to test the hypothesis. So we'll never come to an answer that we can have at least some confidence in. The scientific method isn't the best way to get reliable answers to our most fundamental questions - it's the only way.

If we were to find God did it as Isaac Newton believed we can only hope to make as many scientific discoveries as he did. What he wanted to know what was how God did it. I have no qualms with the scientific method, I believe it uncovers the truth regardless of where our bias lies.

QuoteSo, if you think there is/was/might-have-been/maybe such a creator God, tell us a bit about it - what is it like, how can you know anything at all about it? Does it communicate with humans? Does it wish to be worshiped? Can it cure my ignorance?

You'll have to consult your local churches or theologians for those answers.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 09, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
Which god? Just any god in general? If you give me a specific god, I'll tell you how likely I personally think it is that they exist. Zeus? As close to 0% as I can reasonably get. The Biblical gods? 0.5%. Some vaguely defined monotheist god? Maybe 10%. If the world around us is anything to go by, though, he's most likely not a benevolent one and not worthy of worship.

God defined as a transcendent being who caused the universe to exist.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 10:46:56 PM
God defined as a transcendent being who caused the universe to exist.

Transcendence is doubtful. I think it's more likely a god would be connected to and inseparable from the universe, like what Baruch perscribes to. I think it's possible a god exists in this universe, but I'm waiting to see the evidence.

Quote from: aitm on September 09, 2017, 08:32:42 PM
I am 100% that there is no "god" as defined as the creator of the universe.

How certain are you that all we observe including our own existence could come about by some mindless mechanistic process that never intended to cause life or a create a habitable universe? I guess you have to be 100% confident or you couldn't be 100% confident a Creator wasn't involved in our existence or the universe. I can't fathom where this complete confidence comes from. Even though everything I can check tells me I'm sitting at my desk typing on a keyboard and responding to a post I can't be a 100% certain its not all an illusion. As is stands we really have very little facts about how the universe came into existence or why it has the properties to cause stars, planets and ultimately life. No one in here seems to deny there is much we don't know about how our existence came about. I conclude then that 100% confidence is 100% faith. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 09, 2017, 08:47:35 PM
100% certain there are no god(s).

Can I safely assume you are making a claim you are prepared to back up (preferably with facts and data) and defend?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 11:28:43 PM
Can I safely assume you are making a claim you are prepared to back up (preferably with facts and data) and defend?

It's been done.  Read your own threads about it.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 09, 2017, 05:08:18 PM
Defining God as Creator of the universe doesn't define what God is, but what he does.

And G-d is a verb, not a noun.  I would contend that applies to all "persons".  Non-persons are what ... not who.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 10:08:03 PM
Judging from your disgusting analogy I don't think you're remotely interested in a genuine dialog. I know the favorite hobby horse of atheists is there is no evidence of a Creator (according to atheists of course). There is a thread in here called Goddidit VS Naturedidit you can read all about the case in favor of theism not that it will make any difference.

Don't take it so personal.  There is nothing more natural than crap.

To me, the existence or the non-existence of god makes absolutely no difference.

I do believe though, that man created god in his own image.
For some, religion is a comfort blanket, to others, it is a lethal weapon.

Quote from: pr126 on September 10, 2017, 01:20:13 AM
To me, the existence or the non-existence of god makes absolutely no difference.

I do believe though, that man created god in his own image.
For some, religion is a comfort blanket, to others, it is a lethal weapon.

Which makes people not just demigods, but uber-gods.

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 01:36:14 AM
Which makes people not just demigods, but uber-gods.

IVF  (http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/home/ovc-20206838), genetic manipulation, cloning, etc.

Quote from: pr126 on September 10, 2017, 01:40:25 AM
IVF  (http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/home/ovc-20206838), genetic manipulation, cloning, etc.

Not gods of wisdom, but more like Loki.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 10:08:03 PM
Judging from your disgusting analogy I don't think you're remotely interested in a genuine dialog. I know the favorite hobby horse of atheists is there is no evidence of a Creator (according to atheists of course). There is a thread in here called Goddidit VS Naturedidit you can read all about the case in favor of theism not that it will make any difference.

The analogy serves to show The ridiculousness of your way of Looking at it, in my eyes. It's just an absurd scenario. And it's only poo. Get over yourself. Poo is funny. If i were to go vulgar, I'd find a much worse example, buddy.

In any case, if you don't want to keep getting 'atheism is a lack of a belief' thrown in your face around here, stop making threads showing us that we need to Explain it To you. It boils down to The same discussion there as it does here, because you don't seem to get that is effectively The point of view of most atheists and what it entails for discussion. You are a man who is repeating himself over and over again drew, and who then has The audacity to complain he gets the same arguments thrown back at him.

If you think the percentage of certainty has anything to do with atheism, you probably don't understand most atheists.  Percentages are useful in sliding scales, which lend themselves to percentages.  But atheism is not a sliding scale.  It's either on or off.  Saying that I am 98% certain that a god doesn't exist is not relevant to my belief.  Belief poses the simple question, "Do you believe?"  No need to make a Federal case out of it and no need for percentages.  It's a simple question that defines and separates theists from atheists.  The answer is:  Yes or No.

I couldn't identify my level of certainty about the existence of god, because I have no knowledge or evidence of a god to work with.

And to Drew, I suspect you hear a lot of positive assertions from people who would rather not make positive assertions about what cannot be known, but they do anyway because you set the bar of credibility so low with with your own positive assertions.  People say, "Well if Drew can pull thoughts out of his ass, I guess I can too," so you end up being contradicted by opposing beliefs that are as inane as your own.  And when reasoned arguments are given, you seem to filter them out, so all that you are aware of is bullshit, and then you become even more distracted and lost.

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 01:09:03 AM
And G-d is a verb, not a noun.  I would contend that applies to all "persons".  Non-persons are what ... not who.

Is Bugs Bunny a verb, too???  How about Pecos Bill--another verb?  So, according to your dictates then, god is a what, not a who.  A what?  A fiction, that's what.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 09, 2017, 11:53:45 PM
It's been done.  Read your own threads about it.

I have on many occasions and never saw conclusive smoking gun evidence that would convince anyone with 100% certainty. Only faith statements.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 09:47:49 AM
I have on many occasions and never saw conclusive smoking gun evidence that would convince anyone with 100% certainty. Only faith statements.

Ahem ... dogma.  So many dog lovers here ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2017, 08:35:44 AM
Is Bugs Bunny a verb, too???  How about Pecos Bill--another verb?  So, according to your dictates then, god is a what, not a who.  A what?  A fiction, that's what.

Still technically a who, fiction or real life.  Grammar Nazis say so.  And a who is ... what they do.  Is Bugs Bunny anything beyond what we see him do in the cartoons?  No.  Still making wrong turns at Albuquerque.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 10, 2017, 02:12:33 AM
The analogy serves to show The ridiculousness of your way of Looking at it, in my eyes. It's just an absurd scenario. And it's only poo. Get over yourself. Poo is funny. If i were to go vulgar, I'd find a much worse example, buddy.

So you can be even more classless...good to know.

QuoteIn any case, if you don't want to keep getting 'atheism is a lack of a belief' thrown in your face around here, stop making threads showing us that we need to Explain it To you. It boils down to The same discussion there as it does here, because you don't seem to get that is effectively The point of view of most atheists and what it entails for discussion. You are a man who is repeating himself over and over again drew, and who then has The audacity to complain he gets the same arguments thrown back at him.

Your analogy is totally self serving. The evidence you claim doesn't exist is the same for either of us, we observe ourselves and a universe. You have an explanation based on that evidence as do I. The notion I'm making a claim with no evidence is just the stock and trade of atheists everywhere.   

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 09:47:49 AM
I have on many occasions and never saw conclusive smoking gun evidence that would convince anyone with 100% certainty. Only faith statements.

Of course you did.

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 09:57:27 AM
  Is Bugs Bunny anything beyond what we see him do in the cartoons?  No.  Still making wrong turns at Albuquerque.

Really?  I'd say Bugs is just as real as your g-d.  Both are cartoonish--at best.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 09:47:49 AM
I have on many occasions and never saw conclusive smoking gun evidence that would convince anyone with 100% certainty. Only faith statements.

There are no faith statements for atheism. There is no atheistic dogma or creed. All we have in common is one thing: a lack of belief in gods. Your inability to comprehend this casts doubt on your intelligence.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 10, 2017, 10:46:46 AM
There are no faith statements for atheism. There is no atheistic dogma or creed. All we have in common is one thing: a lack of belief in gods. Your inability to comprehend this casts doubt on your intelligence.

I hope those who claimed to have a 99% or a 100% certainty a Creator of the universe doesn't exist have more than a tepid lack of belief.

Given what we don't know about how or why the universe came about and why the myriad of conditions to allow life obtained the claim of 99% certainty is a faith-belief claim. Its the same you would say about anyone who claims to be 99% certain we owe our existence to God.

What difference does it make either way? Whether there's a creator God or not seems to make exactly zero difference to the way things work. Shit happens with or without a creator God, so - so what?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
How certain are you .....

What part of 100% confuses you?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
I hope those who claimed to have a 99% or a 100% certainty a Creator of the universe doesn't exist have more than a tepid lack of belief.

Given what we don't know about how or why the universe came about and why the myriad of conditions to allow life obtained the claim of 99% certainty is a faith-belief claim. Its the same you would say about anyone who claims to be 99% certain we owe our existence to God.

"God doesn't exist" and "God most likely doesn't exist" are not claims, they are responses to a claim. Specifically, the claim that God or gods exist. It is just as reasonable to dismiss the claim that divine beings exist as it is to dismiss the idea of invisible pink unicorns. Until evidence for the positive claim (your claim) is provided, the reasonable position to take is one of skepticism. If religions ceased to exist, so would atheism. But if atheists all disappeared without a trace one day, theism would still exist in many forms.

Drew attempts a reprise of his prior (according to him) glory.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2017, 10:42:28 AM
Really?  I'd say Bugs is just as real as your g-d.  Both are cartoonish--at best.

Your presence on the Internet isn't you, it is a work of fiction.  Same as for all posters.  So are you saying you don't exist, or that you are cartoonish?

Drew ... you failed epistemology.  The others failed metaphysics.  The law court version of determining reality is ... political (cough).  They have added science to it, but it still isn't science.  A court determines guilt, not truth.  Elections are like a very big jury too.  Political ... to determine guilt.  Hillary was found guilty of failing the election, not guilty of failing any truth.  If elections were about truth (whatever that is) ... we would never be done arguing about the result of the election (cough).  Notice how ... politically, it is very necessary to hide the truth, during elections, and while governing.  Plato said ... the rulers are the only ones who should be allowed to lie.  People lie in court all the time .. or are simply mistaken.  Same as real life, not as in a rigorous laboratory.

What is the point of examining the POV of others?  Why examine one's own POV?

1. We need the contrast of other humans to see ourselves more clearly.  Examining ourselves in isolation is very solipsist.

2. Making an informed self examination, reveals that we have a POV, and that this is based on dogma, reason and experience.  The dogma part is the hardest to identify.  The reason is fraught with errors ... and experience can only be partial.

3. Drew ... you can clearly see the dogma.  But what of it?  Nobody will change their dogma, assuming that they are aware of it.  The others can clearly see your dogma ... and you are unlikely to change.  That is how dogma=axioms work.  It took how long for people to realize that Euclidean geometry wasn't the only possibility?  But that was because Euclidean geometry is very useful in the real world, even if in some circumstances it isn't.  And Euclid (building on the work of others) did a bang up job.  Think ... it is now 1500, we still don't know if the world is round or not, because Columbus didn't make it to China.  Magellan's crew hasn't even set sail yet.  Now try to convince the Vatican that the world is round ;-))

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 10, 2017, 12:05:40 PM
"God doesn't exist" and "God most likely doesn't exist" are not claims, they are responses to a claim. Specifically, the claim that God or gods exist. It is just as reasonable to dismiss the claim that divine beings exist as it is to dismiss the idea of invisible pink unicorns. Until evidence for the positive claim (your claim) is provided, the reasonable position to take is one of skepticism. If religions ceased to exist, so would atheism. But if atheists all disappeared without a trace one day, theism would still exist in many forms.

Blackleaf are you really going to hang your hat on this semantic difference? I can play the negative claim game too. I can claim to be an anaturalist (that's someone who lacks belief in the claim naturalistic forces alone can account for our existence) and then say I make no claim. The problem isn't with your fellow atheists who often play the game themselves its with objective impartial people who read our posts. Can we drop the silly semantic game? The claim God exists and is responsible for the existence of the universe is no less a claim then God doesn't exist and unguided naturalistic forces account for all we observe. 

The irony here is that atheists are so afraid to say they have an opinion about the existence or non existence of a creator. They don't know for sure its true but its what they think is true minus conclusive evidence it is true. Instead they make a fact claim they can't support or pretend they don't make any claim.

A dead body by itself is reasonable evidence the cause was either natural or intentional. Barring any evidence other than a dead body both conclusions are supported by the available evidence...a dead body. Further examination may reveal evidence that comports with the belief it was natural causes or may reveal evidence that comports with the belief it was intentional.

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was caused unintentionally by natural forces or had been caused intentionally by a creator. Neither side of this argument knows how or why the universe came into existence which is why the claim one side is 100% sure is just pissing in the wind and the wind is blowing in your own faces. Further examination of the universe reveals exacting conditions, laws of physics and properties had to obtain right from the beginning for it to result in the existence of stars, galaxies, planets and solar systems which led to the existence of life. That comports with the belief it was caused intentionally. On the other hand there are trillion of planets, much of the universe seems inhospitable and chaotic. Evolution is a reasonable theory of how organisms (once started) evolved into more complicated life. How is it I the theist can see both sides of the coin but the people who supposedly have no axe to grind just following where ever the data leads can't bring themselves to acknowledge there is another side of the coin?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
I hope those who claimed to have a 99% or a 100% certainty a Creator of the universe doesn't exist have more than a tepid lack of belief.

A tepid lack of belief; hmmm.  I don't think my lack of belief even reaches that high of a level of intensity.  Would it be more convincing if I had a rabid lack of belief?  I can do rabid.  Although, it would be kind of weird to get rabid about something you don't care if you have or not.

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 12:58:53 PM
Your presence on the Internet isn't you, it is a work of fiction.  Same as for all posters.  So are you saying you don't exist, or that you are cartoonish?

You postulate something--"Your presence on the Internet isn't you,..." .  I agree that it isn't the total essence of me.  And I can lie, so that that part is a fiction.  But my presence on the internet is an extension of me.  It is not generated by a robot.  It is possible to figure out where I'm posting from, track me down and physically find me.  Not so for your g-d or any god(s).  There is not a single solitary thing that can be used to trace back to god(s).  Nothing.  That is a huge difference.  I postulate from that that there are no god(s)--never were nor ever will be; hence they are all fictions and some cartoonish.

So, you postulate something about me, and then assume your postulation is true.  You then fly off on a tangent with you assumption--"So are you saying you don't exist,"--I've never said that.  "....or that you are cartoonish?"  I've not said that either, but I suppose that would be in the eye of the beholder.

Who created the creator? And why?

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 12:58:53 PM

Drew ... you failed epistemology.  The others failed metaphysics.  The law court version of determining reality is ... political (cough).  They have added science to it, but it still isn't science.  A court determines guilt, not truth.  Elections are like a very big jury too.  Political ... to determine guilt.  Hillary was found guilty of failing the election, not guilty of failing any truth.  If elections were about truth (whatever that is) ... we would never be done arguing about the result of the election (cough).  Notice how ... politically, it is very necessary to hide the truth, during elections, and while governing.  Plato said ... the rulers are the only ones who should be allowed to lie.  People lie in court all the time .. or are simply mistaken.  Same as real life, not as in a rigorous laboratory.

A civil court doesn't attempt to find the truth, they attempt to determine who made the better case for what they think is true. Sometimes this results (per Mark Twain) in determining who hired the best lawyer. Barring conclusive evidence such as exists for a round earth this is our closest approximation. It just makes atheists look like a cult to say they are 99% sure no Creator exists.

Quote from: pr126 on September 10, 2017, 02:35:11 PM
Who created the creator? And why?

Ah!  The Forever question.

Quote from: SGOS on September 10, 2017, 02:33:25 PM
A tepid lack of belief; hmmm.  I don't think my lack of belief even reaches that high of a level of intensity.  Would it be more convincing if I had a rabid lack of belief?  I can do rabid.  Although, it would be kind of weird to get rabid about something you don't care if you have or not.

It should go from a lack of belief to disbelief is that such a far stretch for people who claim to be 99% sure? Do you lack belief in Santa Claus or disbelieve?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
So you can be even more classless...good to know.

You wouldn't know class if it slapped you in the face.

Quote from: pr126 on September 10, 2017, 02:35:11 PM
Who created the creator? And why?

I don't know who or how or why the Creator was created any more than you know how or why mindless forces came into existence and caused a universe that supports life to exist. That doesn't stop you from believing what you believe does it?

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
You postulate something--"Your presence on the Internet isn't you,..." .  I agree that it isn't the total essence of me.  And I can lie, so that that part is a fiction.  But my presence on the internet is an extension of me.  It is not generated by a robot.  It is possible to figure out where I'm posting from, track me down and physically find me.  Not so for your g-d or any god(s).  There is not a single solitary thing that can be used to trace back to god(s).  Nothing.  That is a huge difference.  I postulate from that that there are no god(s)--never were nor ever will be; hence they are all fictions and some cartoonish.

So, you postulate something about me, and then assume your postulation is true.  You then fly off on a tangent with you assumption--"So are you saying you don't exist,"--I've never said that.  "....or that you are cartoonish?"  I've not said that either, but I suppose that would be in the eye of the beholder.

My God, Man.  You are trying to respond to a post that makes no sense to anyone but the guy that posted it.  You know, it's not impolite to ignore posts like that.   :hammerhead:

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 02:39:19 PM
Do you lack belief in Santa Claus or disbelieve?

Actually, I'm rather tepid about the whole thing.

Quote from: SGOS on September 10, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
My God, Man.  You are trying to respond to a post that makes no sense to anyone but the guy that posted it.  You know, it's not impolite to ignore posts like that.   :hammerhead:

:)))))!!

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 02:24:29 PM

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was caused unintentionally by natural forces or had been caused intentionally by a creator.

OR created accidentally. You keep leaving this out as if you think that there has never been anything created by accident, or by mistake or pure stupidity.

Quote from: aitm on September 10, 2017, 03:04:55 PM
OR created accidentally. You keep leaving this out as if you think that there has never been anything created by accident, or by mistake or pure stupidity.

...or has always existed requiring no creation at all.

Quote from: sdelsolray on September 10, 2017, 03:11:54 PM
...or has always existed requiring no creation at all.

he doesn't allow that as an option....except if it's a god of course.

Quote from: aitm on September 10, 2017, 03:04:55 PM
OR created accidentally. You keep leaving this out as if you think that there has never been anything created by accident, or by mistake or pure stupidity.

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was caused unintentionally by natural forces or had been caused intentionally by a creator.

Goddamn son... unintentionally by naturalistic forces covers accidents, mistakes or stupidity.

Quote from: sdelsolray on September 10, 2017, 03:11:54 PM
...or has always existed requiring no creation at all.

If any atheists actually believe that they're more than welcome to defend the possibility...not that they will.

Quote from: aitm on September 10, 2017, 03:04:55 PM
OR created accidentally. You keep leaving this out as if you think that there has never been anything created by accident, or by mistake or pure stupidity.

In Lurianic Kabbalah, that is how creation happened.  G-d dropped a vial of something on the floor by accident, and a Big Bang happened ;-)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 03:28:50 PM
If any atheists actually believe that they're more than welcome to defend the possibility...not that they will.

One hallmark of a theist is that they may be able to read--just can't understand what they read.

You've been told time and again--atheists don't 'believe', they think and reason.  I know that is foreign to you.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2017, 03:45:20 PM
One hallmark of a theist is that they may be able to read--just can't understand what they read.

You've been told time and again--atheists don't 'believe', they think and reason.  I know that is foreign to you.

Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.  Thinking and reasoning are weak tea.  My hand is still at the end of my arm.  My experience is undeniable.  What happened a million years after the Big Bang ... not so undeniable.  Drew simply can't get past the meme of cause/effect ... and most others can't along with him.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 10:13:43 AM
So you can be even more classless...good to know.

Yes, and one, I choose not to be. And two, you can too, but choose not to be. Unless for some reason feces is the pinnacle of vulgarity to you. In which case, you need to reprioritize man.

Quote
Your analogy is totally self serving. The evidence you claim doesn't exist is the same for either of us, we observe ourselves and a universe. You have an explanation based on that evidence as do I. The notion I'm making a claim with no evidence is just the stock and trade of atheists everywhere.

The evidence I claim doesn't exist... I'd rather have you say, the evidence I don't claim to exist. In the example, I don't claim my neighbour didn't shit in my backyard. (PARDON ME FOR THE FOUL LANGUAGE!) I don't claim that I have evidence. And not in the example, I don't claim that no creator POTENTIALLY COULD have created the universe. I'm just saying what you concider to be evidence of that assertion is not evidence in favor of said assertion. Indeed, as in my example, no evidence is brought forth of YOUR CLAIM, without me necessarily having a contradictory claim. It COULD be that god created everything. I don't see a reason to believe this, whatsoever. It could be that my neighbor takes dumps in my backyard and removes them again. But, again, I don't see a reason to believe this.
Existance is not evidence for intelligent creation. Technically, it's not even evidence for unintelligent creation. Not evidence for creation at all. As time is even thought to be something that followed the big bang. I  can't even imagine what passed for laws of physics outside of  time. So who's to say something as obvious as the law of causality even passes 'out there'? One thing I will not do, while still not possiting a claim of my own, is blindly accept something someone else 'feels' is likely, without sufficient reason.

And you can dismiss this stance of weak atheism as much as you like Drew. You can go around with your fingers in your ears screaming 'Atheist make claims without evidence!' until you turn blue for all I care. But I find it rich to hear from someone that doesn't even bother to understand or adress his conversational partner's points, that I am supposedly the one not interested in honest dialogue.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 03:26:46 PM
Goddamn son... unintentionally by naturalistic forces covers accidents, mistakes or stupidity.

No, there could be a creator but a bumbling fool, kinda like you. Or a stupid one or one that mistook the rainbow and puppy dog tails for the shit and giggles bottle. Or one that just doesn't give a shit, doesn't care and has already moved on into another dimension leaving us like a healthy shit in the universal toilet bowl. But you go ahead and splay yourself and spend hours mentally masturbating your fragile ego over something that does not exist, hoping and praying it does to save you from embarrassment.

That some sort of divine entity exists?  Epsilon.  There is an infinitesimally small chance that there is one, but to date, not one shred of evidence indicates there is.  I hold out as much expectation that there is a divine power as I do that luminiferous æther theory will be revived, or that the theories of phlogiston or caloric will be shown correct.

So I feel perfectly comfortable saying that there is no god, as there isn't any reason to take the god hypothesis even provisionally.  Show me some evidence first.

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 03:48:05 PM
Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.  Thinking and reasoning are weak tea.  My hand is still at the end of my arm.  My experience is undeniable.  What happened a million years after the Big Bang ... not so undeniable.  Drew simply can't get past the meme of cause/effect ... and most others can't along with him.

Of course I see that.  I would say the biggest block theists have is simply not knowing.  "I don't know.' , is hard for many to say or think.  It is so much more satisfying to buy into goddidit rather than say 'I don't know'.  Personally, I don't have a problem say that or feeling that.  I don't know more than I know.  Once a person buys into the theist way of looking at the universe with all the holes filled in (with goddidit), things are much easier to deal with.  And don't then, try and reason them out of that posture.  It won't work, because they don't want it to.  Reason means nothing.  Belief and faith are all that matters. 

As for thinking and reasoning being weak tea---it is not weak tea, but the only tea.  You can sincerely believe all you want--with the entire fiber of your being--and it does't make it so.  Thinking and reasoning is the only way to make progress in finding out.  What is so irritating about that is that it is not a quick process.  We make guesses and then test them and find those guesses are not good ones.  Back to the drawing board and more guesses--and so on.  We answer a question and dozens more pop up.  With faith and belief, that process is ignored and not tried.  Much easier if goddidit. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 02:42:58 PM
I don't know who or how or why the Creator was created any more than you know how or why mindless forces came into existence and caused a universe that supports life to exist. That doesn't stop you from believing what you believe does it?

We at least have the chance to figure out the how, with hypothesizing and experimenting and observing, to find the answers to the ultimate questions of existence. We may not find all the answers we'd like to find - but then again we may, because we can continue accumulating knowledge about the universe we find ourselves inhabiting - if we survive long enough to find as many answers to as many questions as we can.

Can you do anything at all to find out more about how and why whatever God you believe might exist cound be the creator God?

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 03:43:33 PM
In Lurianic Kabbalah, that is how creation happened.  G-d dropped a vial of something on the floor by accident, and a Big Bang happened ;-)

So God was a bumbling chem nerd?

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 03:48:05 PM
Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.  Thinking and reasoning are weak tea.

Theologians aren't peer-reviewed.

QuoteMy hand is still at the end of my arm.  My experience is undeniable.  What happened a million years after the Big Bang ... not so undeniable.  Drew simply can't get past the meme of cause/effect ... and most others can't along with him.

Cause and effect may be emergent properties of the large-scale universe. On the quantum scale cause/effect doesn't seem to operate. This is why the first-cause argument has lost whatever force it may once have had.

Also, the cyclic universe model has recently been firmed up, using M-theory. Steinhardt and Turok wrote all about it in Endless Universe.

Part of the reason I don't believe in a supernatural God is that I don't believe in anything else of a supernatural, uh, nature. No ghosts, no goblins, no gods.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 09, 2017, 10:08:03 PM
Judging from your disgusting analogy I don't think you're remotely interested in a genuine dialog. I know the favorite hobby horse of atheists is there is no evidence of a Creator (according to atheists of course). There is a thread in here called Goddidit VS Naturedidit you can read all about the case in favor of theism not that it will make any difference.

There are possibilities of events between 0 and 100%.  I found holes in my backyard from some varmint digging at moles.  It could be skunks, possums, or raccoons.  None of which is either 0% or 100%.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 10, 2017, 02:24:29 PM
Blackleaf are you really going to hang your hat on this semantic difference? I can play the negative claim game too. I can claim to be an anaturalist (that's someone who lacks belief in the claim naturalistic forces alone can account for our existence) and then say I make no claim. The problem isn't with your fellow atheists who often play the game themselves its with objective impartial people who read our posts. Can we drop the silly semantic game? The claim God exists and is responsible for the existence of the universe is no less a claim then God doesn't exist and unguided naturalistic forces account for all we observe. 

The irony here is that atheists are so afraid to say they have an opinion about the existence or non existence of a creator. They don't know for sure its true but its what they think is true minus conclusive evidence it is true. Instead they make a fact claim they can't support or pretend they don't make any claim.

A dead body by itself is reasonable evidence the cause was either natural or intentional. Barring any evidence other than a dead body both conclusions are supported by the available evidence...a dead body. Further examination may reveal evidence that comports with the belief it was natural causes or may reveal evidence that comports with the belief it was intentional.

The existence of the universe by itself is evidence it was caused unintentionally by natural forces or had been caused intentionally by a creator. Neither side of this argument knows how or why the universe came into existence which is why the claim one side is 100% sure is just pissing in the wind and the wind is blowing in your own faces. Further examination of the universe reveals exacting conditions, laws of physics and properties had to obtain right from the beginning for it to result in the existence of stars, galaxies, planets and solar systems which led to the existence of life. That comports with the belief it was caused intentionally. On the other hand there are trillion of planets, much of the universe seems inhospitable and chaotic. Evolution is a reasonable theory of how organisms (once started) evolved into more complicated life. How is it I the theist can see both sides of the coin but the people who supposedly have no axe to grind just following where ever the data leads can't bring themselves to acknowledge there is another side of the coin?

The natural is a part of our every day experiences. The supernatural is not. If you want to claim that the natural doesn't really exist, good luck with that. But I'm not going to let you off the hook for trying to switch the burden of proof or redefine the definition of belief to suit your needs.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 10, 2017, 10:01:47 PM
So God was a bumbling chem nerd?

In Nation of Islam (the Black American cult) White people were created by a mad African scientist ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 10, 2017, 10:08:07 PM
Theologians aren't peer-reviewed.


Cause and effect may be emergent properties of the large-scale universe. On the quantum scale cause/effect doesn't seem to operate. This is why the first-cause argument has lost whatever force it may once have had.

Also, the cyclic universe model has recently been firmed up, using M-theory. Steinhardt and Turok wrote all about it in Endless Universe.

They are peer reviewed (see Pope).  And cross-checked (see Pope).  But they aren't experimentally reproduced.  Kill Jewish carpenter, wait three days ;-((

Sorry, pop science is so much ... science fiction.  Get an experiment where you create stuff ex nihilo ... and I will agree.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2017, 01:04:30 AM
The natural is a part of our every day experiences. The supernatural is not. If you want to claim that the natural doesn't really exist, good luck with that. But I'm not going to let you off the hook for trying to switch the burden of proof or redefine the definition of belief to suit your needs.

I agree.  It seems routine for "Those Of Little Critical Thinking Ability" to assume the burden of proof about atheism rests on the atheists.  The theists started the idea, it is their problem to defend it.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 10, 2017, 10:16:56 PM
Part of the reason I don't believe in a supernatural God is that I don't believe in anything else of a supernatural, uh, nature. No ghosts, no goblins, no gods.

I don't believe in anything being natural.  That is just a crazy idea by Thales et al.  Also I don't believe in arithmetic or geometry.  That is just a cray idea by Pythagoras et al.  I also don't accept Homer or Plato.  I am done with crazy Greeks ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2017, 01:13:52 AM
I don't believe in anything being natural.  That is just a crazy idea by Thales et al.  Also I don't believe in arithmetic or geometry.  That is just a cray idea by Pythagoras et al.  I also don't accept Homer or Plato.  I am done with crazy Greeks ;-)

Yeah, the sons on the squaw on the hippopotomus hide are NOT equal to the sons of the squaws on the other 2 hides...

Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 01:20:43 AM
Yeah, the sons on the squaw on the hippopotomus hide are NOT equal to the sons of the squaws on the other 2 hides...

Funny, but it actually was borrowed from Egypt and Babylon.  And it isn't even true in general (say on a sphere, like the surface of the Earth).  Not a bad approximation, as the Egyptians and Babylonians used it ... using only measuring ropes and no proper surveying equipment.  But it isn't truth (contrary to Kant).  Kant couldn't have "a priori" dealt with non-Euclidean geometry.  And spherical geometry (already available in his day as celestial coordinates and navigation on the land or sea).

Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2017, 01:26:41 AM
Funny, but it actually was borrowed from Egypt and Babylon.  And it isn't even true in general (say on a sphere, like the surface of the Earth).  Not a bad approximation, as the Egyptians and Babylonians used it ... using only measuring ropes and no proper surveying equipment.  But it isn't truth (contrary to Kant).  Kant couldn't have "a priori" dealt with non-Euclidean geometry.  And spherical geometry (already available in his day as celestial coordinates and navigation on the land or sea).

Plane geometry doesn't apply to the curved surface of the Earth.  You get into non-Euclidian geometry there. where the angles are 180 degree+.  Kant can't apply there anyway.

If your neighbor takes a dump in your yard, how do you measure it? Can't use planar geometry. I dont think you can use spherical geometry either... ;-)


OP: all I can say for sure is that god doesn't give a rat's ass about any of us.

Just as there are people that think you should be kissin a cop's ass that start grovelling everytime one shows up, there are some that would immediately start kow-towing if someone claiming to be god showed up. Not me. If some one named god shows up my first reaction will be "What do you want?" I'm not gonna be gettin in the ground kissin the dirt. (if the god of the Bible is real, he will have to send himself to Hell for his atrocious behavior)


As I said before, it doesn't matter to me whether or not there is a Creator. It's not going to change what time I get up to go to work tommorrow. It doesn't get me a bigger pay check to know with 100% certainty that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or to know the universe is 17 billion years old. - Maybe Drew thinks the existence of a Creator is proof that a god exists, but I don't. You can't make the argument a Creator existed => god exists without filling in the details

Quote from: fencerider on September 11, 2017, 03:58:46 AM
If your neighbor takes a dump in your yard, how do you measure it? Can't use planar geometry. I dont think you can use spherical geometry either... ;-)


OP: all I can say for sure is that god doesn't give a rat's ass about any of us.

Just as there are people that think you should be kissin a cop's ass that start grovelling everytime one shows up, there are some that would immediately start kow-towing if someone claiming to be god showed up. Not me. If some one named god shows up my first reaction will be "What do you want?" I'm not gonna be gettin in the ground kissin the dirt. (if the god of the Bible is real, he will have to send himself to Hell for his atrocious behavior)


As I said before, it doesn't matter to me whether or not there is a Creator. It's not going to change what time I get up to go to work tommorrow. It doesn't get me a bigger pay check to know with 100% certainty that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or to know the universe is 17 billion years old. - Maybe Drew thinks the existence of a Creator is proof that a god exists, but I don't. You can't make the argument a Creator existed => god exists without filling in the details

If the neighbor (or hid mutt) takes a dump in your yard, you toss it back over the fence at night.  No non-Euclidian geometry involved.

Regarding "all I can say for sure is that god doesn't give a rat's ass about any of us." that assumes a deity and I don't.

The last time the police showed up here, it was the regular domestic screaming match across the street.  I was standing in my driveway and the policeperson said to go inside.  I said "no, its my yard and I will stand out here and watch the fun..."

Then I learned they thought I was part of the screaming.  No, it was 2 houses down the street.  I WAS shining a flashlight at them to be a witness if one attacked the other.  And one had.  Took the family baby and tried to drive away in the car.  While the other stood in front of it and got bumped and bumped and bumped before standing off when the cops came.

My offerred witness status got they case settled out of court and both thrown out of the rental house.  Peace as reigned ever since.

Rumor says they are both in jail for various crimes.  But "gone" is fine with the neighborhood.

Quote from: Baruch on September 10, 2017, 03:48:05 PM
Theologians think and reason too ... and fail just the same.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 10, 2017, 10:08:07 PM
Theologians aren't peer-reviewed.

They don't think and reason either.  Oh, I suppose you can think and wonder about why God loves you so much, just like I think and wonder why Angelina Jolie keeps stalking me all the time.

The point is that not all thinking and reasoning is equal.  This is Drew's obsession.  He wants to put religion and science on equal footing.  It's a tall order which no one could ever achieve, least of all, Drew.  From what I can tell, he has made it his mission.

Quote from: SGOS on September 11, 2017, 08:14:03 AM
They don't think and reason either.  Oh, I suppose you can think and wonder about why God loves you so much, just like I think and wonder why Angelina Jolie keeps stalking me all the time.

The point is that not all thinking and reasoning is equal.  This is Drew's obsession.  He wants to put religion and science on equal footing.  It's a tall order which no one could ever achieve, least of all, Drew.  From what I can tell, he has made it his mission.

Outstanding!  THINKING and thinking are not the same.  Any idiot can have a thought, but actually "THINKING" is a bit different. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2017, 03:45:20 PM
One hallmark of a theist is that they may be able to read--just can't understand what they read.

You've been told time and again--atheists don't 'believe', they think and reason.  I know that is foreign to you.

The word you're looking for isn't foreign...its bullshit.

Reason and evidence leads one to a tentative conclusion. A tentative conclusion about something...anything is a belief. Why does that scare you? I believe (don't know for sure) very small things called atoms exist. I believe also that scientists tell me the truth of what they believe is true.  We have beliefs about everything without knowing for sure. Every time you sit your ass in a chair you believe (with good reason) it will support you. But you don't know for sure. Its a minor act of faith not a major one.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 10, 2017, 06:43:27 PM
Of course I see that.  I would say the biggest block theists have is simply not knowing.  "I don't know.' , is hard for many to say or think.  It is so much more satisfying to buy into goddidit rather than say 'I don't know'.  Personally, I don't have a problem say that or feeling that.  I don't know more than I know.  Once a person buys into the theist way of looking at the universe with all the holes filled in (with goddidit), things are much easier to deal with.  And don't then, try and reason them out of that posture.  It won't work, because they don't want it to.  Reason means nothing.  Belief and faith are all that matters. 

Mike didn't you say you're 100 or 99% sure we don't owe our existence to a Creator? Why don't you admit you don't know but believe that to be so? Oh I know the word believe scares you...

Thinking is HARD! And a HARD man is good to find!

Here's a man thinking really HARD!


(https://i.imgflip.com/1mfbh6.jpg)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 03:52:18 PM
The word you're looking for isn't foreign...its bullshit.

Reason and evidence leads one to a tentative conclusion. A tentative conclusion about something...anything is a belief. Why does that scare you? I believe (don't know for sure) very small things called atoms exist. I believe also that scientists tell me the truth of what they believe is true.  We have beliefs about everything without knowing for sure. Every time you sit your ass in a chair you believe (with good reason) it will support you. But you don't know for sure. Its a minor act of faith not a major one.

Ah Drew, you poor soul.  Not every thought is a belief.  I get that from theists all the time.  I don't "believe" that pi is the circumference of a circle.  I don't "believe" F=MA.  There are facts in the world.  And the existence of a deity or actual belief is not among them.  MOO!

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 11, 2017, 01:04:30 AM
The natural is a part of our every day experiences. The supernatural is not. If you want to claim that the natural doesn't really exist, good luck with that. But I'm not going to let you off the hook for trying to switch the burden of proof or redefine the definition of belief to suit your needs.

Excellent non-response.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 04:06:49 PM
Excellent non-response.

No, Blackleaf is correct.  The burden of proof is on the theists for the claim there is a deity of ANY sort.  The question of "what, huh?" is not the claim to be defended.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 10, 2017, 04:28:00 PM

The evidence I claim doesn't exist... I'd rather have you say, the evidence I don't claim to exist. In the example, I don't claim my neighbour didn't shit in my backyard. (PARDON ME FOR THE FOUL LANGUAGE!) I don't claim that I have evidence. And not in the example, I don't claim that no creator POTENTIALLY COULD have created the universe. I'm just saying what you concider to be evidence of that assertion is not evidence in favor of said assertion. Indeed, as in my example, no evidence is brought forth of YOUR CLAIM, without me necessarily having a contradictory claim. It COULD be that god created everything. I don't see a reason to believe this, whatsoever. It could be that my neighbor takes dumps in my backyard and removes them again. But, again, I don't see a reason to believe this.

Just curious when you talk to co-workers, friends or meeting someone new if you use such crude analogies? Your analogy was just self-serving. You're entitled to doubt, disbelieve, believe, swear by think anything you want about anything you want whether there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of it or in spite of an overwhelming amount of evidence against a proposition. What you're not entitled to do is state a counter claim has no evidence in favor of it because you say so and declare its the same as a story you make up because you say so.

Its fair to assume you don't consider the existence of the universe and sentient life evidence of a creator. I do consider it evidence of a Creator and I consider a Creator to be a better explanation for all we observe than the counter explanation it was the result of unintended happenstance. 

Well, isn't that special...

Quote from: SGOS on September 11, 2017, 08:14:03 AM
The point is that not all thinking and reasoning is equal.  This is Drew's obsession.  He wants to put religion and science on equal footing.  It's a tall order which no one could ever achieve, least of all, Drew.  From what I can tell, he has made it his mission.

What religion am I promoting?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 05:35:56 PM
Just curious when you talk to co-workers, friends or meeting someone new if you use such crude analogies? Your analogy was just self-serving. You're entitled to doubt, disbelieve, believe, swear by think anything you want about anything you want whether there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of it or in spite of an overwhelming amount of evidence against a proposition. What you're not entitled to do is state a counter claim has no evidence in favor of it because you say so and declare its the same as a story you make up because you say so.

Its fair to assume you don't consider the existence of the universe and sentient life evidence of a creator. I do consider it evidence of a Creator and I consider a Creator to be a better explanation for all we observe than the counter explanation it was the result of unintended happenstance.

Are you just not getting the understanding of whose assertion it is?  You assert the claim there is a deity. YOU have to prove it.  Stop being Trumpish.

Can't see the poll on Tapatalk. What are my options?


Sent while riding my mighty steed: Godzilla

How certain are you God defined as Creator of the universe doesn't exist?


99.99999%


5 (71.4%)
90%


1 (14.3%)
80%


1 (14.3%)
70%
0 (0%)
60% or below
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 7

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 05:35:56 PM
Just curious when you talk to co-workers, friends or meeting someone new if you use such crude analogies? Your analogy was just self-serving. You're entitled to doubt, disbelieve, believe, swear by think anything you want about anything you want whether there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of it or in spite of an overwhelming amount of evidence against a proposition. What you're not entitled to do is state a counter claim has no evidence in favor of it because you say so and declare its the same as a story you make up because you say so.

Its fair to assume you don't consider the existence of the universe and sentient life evidence of a creator. I do consider it evidence of a Creator and I consider a Creator to be a better explanation for all we observe than the counter explanation it was the result of unintended happenstance.

Not to my grandma. No. But to others, less sensitive than an (almost) eighty year old woman? Why yes. Again. It's just poo. Is your skin truly that thin? Really?
My analogy is not self-serving, by the way. Seeing as you feel the need to keep saying that to convince yourself or something. It goes like this in it's most basic form, without the poo-padding. You make a claim that doesn't explain anything more than is already present in my backyard (aka reality) than if it were absent, a superfluous claim and explanation if you will... You have no evidence to back up your claim. And then you seem to think I must explain why I believe your unproven claim is false, as if I am the one making a positive claim that my neighbour doesn't do that. Do you see how stupid that would be? Me having to point out how certain I am my neighbor doesn't do that? Put a number on it? And provide evidence for something I have no reason to believe is true?

In any case. You say you are 55% certain there was a creator. I, again, think putting a number on it is weird, but whatever. That's just a difference between us.
You are pretty close to 50%, you say. Does that mean you could hypothetically accept that everything we see here in this "creation" is actually formed without a divine creator through purely natural processes? No supernatural origin needed? If so, and you can't actually provide any evidence for this creator as an instagator of the natural processes you'd use to explain this reality without him, don't you see there really is no reason to put that deity there in the first place? In that case, if you could see it work without him and without having any evidence for him, you are just adding a useless step. A non-answer. And the only reason you believe that the things which you could see work without him are actually evidence for him is because it's an answer that appeals to you. It's what you 'feel' is logical. But that's all it is then, isn't it? A matter of feeling. It's what you feel comfortable with. It's not what is logical. It's not what is pointed at by the workings of the universe. It's what you feel should be.
Well, I'm sorry. But I don't care about how you feel.
You make a claim. You back it up. Don't shift the burden of proof, just because you can't defend what you want to be true.

And learn to deal with poo, dude. Everyone does it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 03:52:18 PM
The word you're looking for isn't foreign...its bullshit.

There ya go--you spew bullshit--that WAS the word I was looking for.  Thanks.

For you everything is a belief.  There is no such thing as a fact, reasoning, critical thinking--it all boils down to what you feel in your guts--what your belief is.  You and your kind are why we have trump.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 11, 2017, 06:15:03 PM

My analogy is not self-serving, by the way. Seeing as you feel the need to keep saying that to convince yourself or something. It goes like this in it's most basic form, without the poo-padding. You make a claim that doesn't explain anything more than is already present in my backyard (aka reality) than if it were absent, a superfluous claim and explanation if you will... You have no evidence to back up your claim. And then you seem to think I must explain why I believe your unproven claim is false, as if I am the one making a positive claim that my neighbour doesn't do that. Do you see how stupid that would be? Me having to point out how certain I am my neighbor doesn't do that? Put a number on it? And provide evidence for something I have no reason to believe is true?

I do have evidence and offered two facts you ignored, the existence of the universe and the fact of sentient life. You do acknowledge its a fact the universe exists and sentient life exists correct? If you want to argue those facts are better explained by what you believe that's fine. What you and most atheists do is attempt to preemptively claim those facts aren't evidence because they don't personally convince you a Creator caused the universe. The correct analogy is you see a pile of shit in your back yard but because you can't believe your neighbor is so crude to take a dump on your lawn you claim the shit isn't evidence. Thus making your lack of belief evidence and argument proof. 

QuoteYou are pretty close to 50%, you say. Does that mean you could hypothetically accept that everything we see here in this "creation" is actually formed without a divine creator through purely natural processes? No supernatural origin needed? If so, and you can't actually provide any evidence for this creator as an instagator of the natural processes you'd use to explain this reality without him, don't you see there really is no reason to put that deity there in the first place? In that case, if you could see it work without him and without having any evidence for him, you are just adding a useless step. A non-answer. And the only reason you believe that the things which you could see work without him are actually evidence for him is because it's an answer that appeals to you. It's what you 'feel' is logical. But that's all it is then, isn't it? A matter of feeling. It's what you feel comfortable with. It's not what is logical. It's not what is pointed at by the workings of the universe. It's what you feel should be.

I view naturalism as second runner up to theism. If we discovered this was one of many or an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics that would highly favor of naturalism. If we find life elsewhere especially life that couldn't have come from earth in anyway would alter the equation. If a theory of everything explains why the conditions for life and the laws of physics obtained would be a big feather in the cap of naturalism. If a naturalistic (non-god) explanation of how the universe came into existence actually pans out that would be highly favorable to naturalism. You are aware that scientists have created virtual universes I assume. Could those universes have just as well come about by happenstance? Why not? How can one say it takes willful intelligence to cause to virtual universe to exist but non-intelligence is capable of causing a universe that allows for sentient life to exist?

By the way Mr Obvious, its not burden shifting its examining the entire picture. If criminologists come across a corpse its not enough to rule out an intelligent cause to determine its 'natural causes' you also have to come up with an explanation of how it occurred naturally to rule out the possibility it was intentional. Whether an active disbelief or a lack of belief you still have to question whether what we observe could have been caused by what we call natural (non-god) causes. The notion atheism or naturalism is some kind of default position is just atheist hogwash. The reason I can assign a percent is because unlike atheists I'm not in denial there is evidence to support their position that defrays from the certainty of my position.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 11, 2017, 06:28:30 PM
There ya go--you spew bullshit--that WAS the word I was looking for.  Thanks.

For you everything is a belief.  There is no such thing as a fact, reasoning, critical thinking--it all boils down to what you feel in your guts--what your belief is.  You and your kind are why we have trump.

If it were up to you and your kind we'd have Hillary...shivers at the thought.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 08:52:05 PM
If it were up to you and your kind we'd have Hillary...shivers at the thought.

As blind and stupid you are, I'm not surprised.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 02:04:06 AM
Plane geometry doesn't apply to the curved surface of the Earth.  You get into non-Euclidian geometry there. where the angles are 180 degree+.  Kant can't apply there anyway.

Like most people ... Kant worshipped Euclid.  There is actually very little that is "a priori", if anything.  It is all "a posteriori".

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 08:52:05 PM
If it were up to you and your kind we'd have Hillary...shivers at the thought.

Yeah. We might have had a normal President who doesn't habitually break the law, show absolutely zero competence at the job, or surround themselves with even more incompetent people. We sure dodged a bullet there.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 12:56:01 AM
Yeah. We might have had a normal President who doesn't habitually break the law, show absolutely zero competence at the job, or surround themselves with even more incompetent people. We sure dodged a bullet there.

Bizarro D or Bizarro R ... just don't call in Bizarro Superman.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 11, 2017, 08:50:41 PM
I do have evidence and offered two facts you ignored, the existence of the universe and the fact of sentient life. You do acknowledge its a fact the universe exists and sentient life exists correct? If you want to argue those facts are better explained by what you believe that's fine. What you and most atheists do is attempt to preemptively claim those facts aren't evidence because they don't personally convince you a Creator caused the universe. The correct analogy is you see a pile of shit in your back yard but because you can't believe your neighbor is so crude to take a dump on your lawn you claim the shit isn't evidence. Thus making your lack of belief evidence and argument proof. 

Those really are not evidence for or against your claim, though. Facts? Well yes, the universe exists and sentient life exists. But that doesn’t strengthen nor weaken your claim. (Nor would they support me if I were to claim there is no creator.) And it’s not because they don’t personally convince me that there is a creator. It’s because they actually don’t point to a creator, you just think and feel they do. A ‘creation’ being necessary for something to be deemed a creator does not make it any more likely that an ‘existence’ is a ‘creation’. And what we see, this reality around us, is definitely an ‘existence’. That is the fact. Not that it’s a ‘creation’. And the ‘existence’ thus is not evidence for a ‘creator’. It could potentially be that this ‘existence’ it’s a ‘creation’, but for it to be ‘elevated’ to that, you’d need to present the necessary evidence. Evidence I can’t even imagine, I grant you. But without it, you do not get to claim the universe is evidence for ‘creation’ and ‘creator’. And the existence of sentient life, or even life in general follows this same line, apart from the fact that they make even less sense seeing as not only no creator is necessary to have them arise from the universe, but also that a creator could make a universe without life and sentience.
That is why the analogy does work, to some extent. (At the end of the day it’s still an analogy, after all.) It’s why I mention that the neighbour takes the evidence with him. Because we see the backyard. The universe. But we don’t see anything pointing towards outside tampering with it. Everything within the backyard could be explained within the context of the backyard without the neighbour climbing in and doing his thing. And you actually agree with this somewhat, as you seem to think it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise if there wasn’t this superbackyardian or a supernatural influence to start with. I don’t claim the pile of shit isn’t evidence. There is no pile of shit you can point to. There is only the backyard.

Quote
I view naturalism as second runner up to theism. If we discovered this was one of many or an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics that would highly favor of naturalism. If we find life elsewhere especially life that couldn't have come from earth in anyway would alter the equation. If a theory of everything explains why the conditions for life and the laws of physics obtained would be a big feather in the cap of naturalism. If a naturalistic (non-god) explanation of how the universe came into existence actually pans out that would be highly favorable to naturalism. You are aware that scientists have created virtual universes I assume. Could those universes have just as well come about by happenstance? Why not? How can one say it takes willful intelligence to cause to virtual universe to exist but non-intelligence is capable of causing a universe that allows for sentient life to exist?

I’ve seen you put that in a different thread a while back. And I find it strange. The existence of (intelligent) life is in favour of a creator. But the existence of more life in the universe would be evidence against a creator? Why? How does that work? Does that imply you are invested in the idea of a personal deity? If one universe exists, it’s proof for a creator. But if more universes exists, it’s proof against a creator? How? How does that work? What mental gymnastics are you applying, explain it to me? Because you see, if for one second I were to hypothetically agree with you that life and the universe are evidence of a creator… Just for a second, I’m with you. And now suddenly we both find out there are alien civilisations and multiple universes… How does that shake the belief I have in a creator? Not in a personal deity, mind you, just the idea of an instigator to the universe. If the creator created life on this planet, why would he not do it on others? Why would that be evidence against his power, rather than for it? (Given that the existence of life is proof of the creator.) Same with universes? It’d be MORE evidence for a creator, if they were conceivable as evidence for a creator in the first place.
Things have been explained more and more without the need for Gods. From the variation of species to the existence of stars and planets, to thunder and lightning. But people still cling to the idea of a creator guiding these things. Does that not show you as well that the creator-theory is an unfalsifiable theory? It really is. Because as soon as we learned how planets worked, how life came to be… People started saying there could still be someone guiding all of it. Nothing we can discover can actually damage the idea that a creator created everything, if there is no creator in the first place.
To get back to your point though. I’m not putting forth that non-intelligence HAD to be the cause. I’m not even saying there HAD to be a cause seeing as the laws of physics as we know them, for all we know, only exist within this universe and that the law causation may not even be relevant here. I’m just saying that because you assume that there had to be a cause and that that cause had to be intelligence, you need to show why.
I will say this aligns with the most amusing thing I’ve seen you say. And I really appreciated it. I think you’ve made this point before, regarding the virtual universes. And it was an interesting take. I think I even gave you a like for that because you had such a novel and clever way of putting it. But eventually it boils back down to the unfalsifiableness of your hypothesis and the shifting of the burden of proof to someone who’s not even making a claim.

Quote
By the way Mr Obvious, its not burden shifting its examining the entire picture. If criminologists come across a corpse its not enough to rule out an intelligent cause to determine its 'natural causes' you also have to come up with an explanation of how it occurred naturally to rule out the possibility it was intentional. Whether an active disbelief or a lack of belief you still have to question whether what we observe could have been caused by what we call natural (non-god) causes. The notion atheism or naturalism is some kind of default position is just atheist hogwash. The reason I can assign a percent is because unlike atheists I'm not in denial there is evidence to support their position that defrays from the certainty of my position.

With this, you remind of someone else who was on this forum a while back. The guy was really big on the criminology analogy as well. I’ll tell you, more or less, the same thing I told him. Who are the ones examining the evidence in this case? It’s the coroners. The scientists. And guess what the body scientists who examine the world tend not to find, evidence for a creation. They don’t find evidence against a creation. But they don’t find evidence for one either. So, in your example, the coroners don’t find gashing cuts. They don’t find poison in the body. They don’t find blunt trauma on the back of the head…
What you have is someone who died, for example, of heart failure. And yes, it could be that it is that the person is killed by some poison afflicting the heart that’s not showing up on the toxicology report because it’s not a discovered toxin yet and thus can’t be tested for… But they don’t find any actual poison. So no, they don’t operate on the idea that the body has been poisoned by some murderer. I see no shit. I don’t operate on the idea that my neighbour shat in my yard. And we all don’t operate on the idea that this ‘existence’ was ‘created’ by a creator. And guess what, we are indeed justified in that stance.

It was ... cough ... Randy.  How soon you forget.

Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:16:08 AM
It was ... cough ... Randy.  How soon you forget.

I didn't choose Mr. Memory as my nick ;)

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 12, 2017, 07:05:13 AM
Those really are not evidence for or against your claim, though. Facts? Well yes, the universe exists and sentient life exists. But that doesn’t strengthen nor weaken your claim. (Nor would they support me if I were to claim there is no creator.) And it’s not because they don’t personally convince me that there is a creator. It’s because they actually don’t point to a creator, you just think and feel they do. A ‘creation’ being necessary for something to be deemed a creator does not make it any more likely that an ‘existence’ is a ‘creation’. And what we see, this reality around us, is definitely an ‘existence’. That is the fact. Not that it’s a ‘creation’. And the ‘existence’ thus is not evidence for a ‘creator’. It could potentially be that this ‘existence’ it’s a ‘creation’, but for it to be ‘elevated’ to that, you’d need to present the necessary evidence. Evidence I can’t even imagine, I grant you. But without it, you do not get to claim the universe is evidence for ‘creation’ and ‘creator’. And the existence of sentient life, or even life in general follows this same line, apart from the fact that they make even less sense seeing as not only no creator is necessary to have them arise from the universe, but also that a creator could make a universe without life and sentience.

Yes, it's the old fallacy of equivocation.  Call existence a "creation" enough times and it eventually becomes a colloquial synonym.  Then you reason, "If it's a creation, it had to be created."  And <Presto!>, it's a created creation.  But it's not necessarily a creation either.  All we really know is that it exists.  The how or why remains a mystery both before and after we twist the words.  At least until such time as evidence becomes available.

Drew argues that natural forces suffers the same dismal failure as Goddidit.  But does it?.  Drew likes to add his own personal Killer Caveat to what he sees as the universal atheist claim: "Existence is a result of natural forces <add caveat>  ALL THE WAY DOWN!"

Whoa!  That makes it sound chilling an ominous as if doom is right around the corner.  It's all the fuckin' way down!

But do all atheists add that caveat?  I don't know how many do, but I know at least one that doesn't.  Me.  We do know natural forces exist.  We have observed and measured many of them, but... Maybe they aren't really natural ALL THE WAY DOWN.  OK maybe not.

So what?

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 12:56:01 AM
Yeah. We might have had a normal President who doesn't habitually break the law, show absolutely zero competence at the job, or surround themselves with even more incompetent people. We sure dodged a bullet there.

You mean not like the way she ran her campaign?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 12, 2017, 04:56:40 PM
You mean not like the way she ran her campaign?

Nice soft ball there. Deny it all you want, but clearly you chose the greater of two evils. Hillary had years of experience in politics, Trump had none. Hillary was not a psychotic weirdo who challenged the freedom of the press because they published unflattering stories about her. Hillary did not give legitimacy to racist organizations that needed to stay in hiding. Hillary did not deny scientific facts in order to push an agenda that will fuck over our planet. Hillary was declared innocent by the FBI, while Trump was under multiple investigations, and once in power he abused that power by obstructing justice. There is literally no weakness in Hillary that isn't far outweighed by Trump's.

Bill Clinton never sucked up to finance (cough)
George H never chocked on a pretzel (heimlich) ... nobody caught my hint, that would have flagged this typo ;-(
Obama never ran a crooked DoJ (cough)

So experienced politicians get you what again?  This is why 80 year old Southern Congressmen used to dominate the government.  Also helped to enforce their peculiar policies.

Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:04:02 PMBill Clinton never sucked up to finance (cough)

Better to be the corrupt backer than to use corrupt backers for funds, huh? Also, you're already out of things to criticize Hillary for, so you've moved on to her husband?

Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:04:02 PMGeorge H never chocked on a pretzel (heimlich)

George H.W. Bush? What does an elderly Republican President have to do with anything?

Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:04:02 PMObama never ran a crooked DoJ (cough)

Still would take him back over Trump in a heartbeat. Seriously, you're trying to claim that Obama and Trump are equally as bad?

Quote from: Baruch on September 12, 2017, 07:04:02 PMSo experienced politicians get you what again?  This is why 80 year old Southern Congressmen used to dominate the government.  Also helped to enforce their peculiar policies.

Experience in a field typically makes one more knowledgeable about how to operate in that field. Would you go to a dentist with no dental degree? Would you hire someone who's never so much as hammered a nail to build your house? That would be idiotic. Just like hiring someone with no experience in politics, who even several months after being elected still has an incomplete cabinet!

I think the people that voted for Trump are too stupid to ever be allowed to vote again. The ones that still support him after 7 months of abysmal failure need to have their meds checked.


I'm still waiting for Drew to explain how the universe is proof of a creator. He has said it as a fact so many times, but he has never said why.

Quote from: fencerider on September 12, 2017, 07:54:28 PM
I think the people that voted for Trump are too stupid to ever be allowed to vote again. The ones that still support him after 7 months of abysmal failure need to have their meds checked.

I wouldn't mind if they were to all win Darwin awards...

I do have evidence and offered two facts you ignored, the existence of the universe and the fact of sentient life. You do acknowledge its a fact the universe exists and sentient life exists correct? If you want to argue those facts are better explained by what you believe that's fine. What you and most atheists do is attempt to preemptively claim those facts aren't evidence because they don't personally convince you a Creator caused the universe. The correct analogy is you see a pile of shit in your back yard but because you can't believe your neighbor is so crude to take a dump on your lawn you claim the shit isn't evidence. Thus making your lack of belief evidence and argument proof. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 12, 2017, 07:05:13 AM
Those really are not evidence for or against your claim, though. Facts? Well yes, the universe exists and sentient life exists. But that doesn’t strengthen nor weaken your claim. (Nor would they support me if I were to claim there is no creator.) And it’s not because they don’t personally convince me that there is a creator. It’s because they actually don’t point to a creator, you just think and feel they do.

Of course you were going to respond its not evidence and you'll systematically rule out any fact I offer as evidence. I use homicide investigation as a analogy because they do the same thing we're doing. They want to know if a death is natural causes or caused intentionally. It's a foregone conclusion you'll never admit there is evidence in favor of theism because it is a cornerstone doctrine of atheism 'there is no evidence in favor of theism'. If you were to admit there is evidence, game over because theism becomes an intellectually justified belief. For the sake of impartial lurkers in this forum evidence is just facts that comport with a belief. Theist's believe a Creator caused the universe and life to exist and lo the universe and life exists. Whether anyone agrees or admits its evidence it is. The fact of a dead body is evidence of murder. Its not proof of murder because we know death can occur without it being murder. In the case of the universe its not actually known whether it was or could be caused by natural processes or whether it could or was caused by a Creator. Note I didn't say the creation of the universe is evidence of a Creator, I said the existence of the universe is evidence of a Creator. Suppose we could somehow have this conversation but no universe existed and I said I believe an invisible Creator exists you would say what do you attribute to the existence of a Creator and I said the universe. You'd say Drew there is no universe therefore while your claim maybe true you're not attributing anything to the existence of a Creator. The dogmatic claim by atheists there is no evidence of a Creator would actually be true!

QuoteAnd the existence of sentient life, or even life in general follows this same line, apart from the fact that they make even less sense seeing as not only no creator is necessary to have them arise from the universe

Stop right there... no creator is necessary is a claim, not only is it a claim, its one you offer no evidence of nor is it one you know is true. You are actually stating a belief. You don't know that a Creator isn't necessary for the existence of the universe or for life to exist. You assume there is no Creator thus making one unnecessary a classic example of circular reasoning.

QuoteThat is why the analogy does work, to some extent. (At the end of the day it’s still an analogy, after all.) It’s why I mention that the neighbour takes the evidence with him. Because we see the backyard. The universe. But we don’t see anything pointing towards outside tampering with it. Everything within the backyard could be explained within the context of the backyard without the neighbour climbing in and doing his thing. And you actually agree with this somewhat, as you seem to think it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise if there wasn’t this superbackyardian or a supernatural influence to start with. I don’t claim the pile of shit isn’t evidence. There is no pile of shit you can point to. There is only the backyard.

Except the belief isn't that someone took a dump in your backyard the belief is someone caused the universe and life to exist and there is a universe and there is life. Your analogy at best is a bait and switch. What's amazing is that you don't see that and you probably still won't. You'll insist its still a perfectly valid analogy. I take solace in the fact any lurker remotely impartial will know other wise.

QuoteI’ve seen you put that in a different thread a while back. And I find it strange. The existence of (intelligent) life is in favour of a creator. But the existence of more life in the universe would be evidence against a creator? Why?

You're right its not bombshell type evidence. One might argue its hubris on our part to think a Creator would create only life on earth. However, atheists would jump on it as evidence life wasn't intentional it can occur in a lot of places under completely different circumstances. Over all I think it would favor that narrative.

QuoteHow does that work? Does that imply you are invested in the idea of a personal deity? If one universe exists, it’s proof for a creator. But if more universes exists, it’s proof against a creator? How? How does that work? What mental gymnastics are you applying, explain it to me?

The existence of a multitude (or infinitude as some have suggested) of universe with varying characteristics could account for the exacting properties and conditions that obtained in this universe in a mindless unintentional manner that resulted in life (as we know it) existing. As the saying goes sometimes less is more. 

QuoteThings have been explained more and more without the need for Gods. From the variation of species to the existence of stars and planets, to thunder and lightning. But people still cling to the idea of a creator guiding these things. Does that not show you as well that the creator-theory is an unfalsifiable theory? It really is. Because as soon as we learned how planets worked, how life came to be… People started saying there could still be someone guiding all of it. Nothing we can discover can actually damage the idea that a creator created everything, if there is no creator in the first place.

No, it demonstrates that when or if scientists prove a 'naturalistic cause' for something attributed to the existence of gods (rain god, earthquake god) that people reject those beliefs. The same would be true for a Creator of the universe if scientists prove a naturalistic cause of the universe belief in a Creator will wane. A favorite argument of atheists is that there is a long history of beliefs that have proven to be naturalistic and thus a track record has been established. However this is only true if its naturalistic causes all the way down. If there is a Creator the track record is moot.

QuoteI’m just saying that because you assume that there had to be a cause and that that cause had to be intelligence, you need to show why.

I don't assume there has to be a cause but I suspect there is for that there is a good track record. But you don't believe the universe came into existence uncaused do you? Since you decline to believe things with no evidence you should be consistent.

QuoteI will say this aligns with the most amusing thing I’ve seen you say. And I really appreciated it. I think you’ve made this point before, regarding the virtual universes. And it was an interesting take. I think I even gave you a like for that because you had such a novel and clever way of putting it. But eventually it boils back down to the unfalsifiableness of your hypothesis and the shifting of the burden of proof to someone who’s not even making a claim.

You are and have made a claim... that a creator is unnecessary. So I asked if a creator was unnecessary to cause a virtual universe to exist a fair question.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 07:30:40 PM
Better to be the corrupt backer than to use corrupt backers for funds, huh? Also, you're already out of things to criticize Hillary for, so you've moved on to her husband?

George H.W. Bush? What does an elderly Republican President have to do with anything?

Still would take him back over Trump in a heartbeat. Seriously, you're trying to claim that Obama and Trump are equally as bad?

Experience in a field typically makes one more knowledgeable about how to operate in that field. Would you go to a dentist with no dental degree? Would you hire someone who's never so much as hammered a nail to build your house? That would be idiotic. Just like hiring someone with no experience in politics, who even several months after being elected still has an incomplete cabinet!

What?  The Clintons earned their own money?  They printed their own money?  They grifted it from corrupt donors, right?

George W, my bad.  George W was the one too incompetent to safely eat pretzels ... that is why Death's Head Cheney was really running things.  And no, I wasn't making a false equivalence, you were ... comparing Democrats to Mother Theresa.  My G-d!  Hillary isn't even Catholic! (sarc).

Experience ... yes, exactly Socrates' argument in Plato's Republic.  So you are really part of the Guardian Class (the real Master Race)?  That was exactly why Socrates hated Democracy ... because the know nothings (in the upper class only of course ... people just like Trump and George W) kept thinking they were geniuses when they were just silver spoons from broken families (awww).  They didn't realize that Socrates would have led them to a paradise of 72 little boys.  Or was that just Plato putting his own sick whatever into Socrates' mouth?  This Is Sparta!

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 12, 2017, 08:00:48 PM
I wouldn't mind if they were to all win Darwin awards...

Darwin was smarter than his contemporaries ... and kicked ass in Thunder Dome!

Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 05:48:58 PM
Are you just not getting the understanding of whose assertion it is?  You assert the claim there is a deity. YOU have to prove it.  Stop being Trumpish.

Unlike my atheist friends I don't deny I make a belief claim, not a fact claim. I have made a case for it and have linked to it on several occasions. The more I talk with atheists the more I come to think it is cultish. Here we are in a thread with a poll in which 6 respondents claim they are 99.99999% sure no creator exists yet you insist I alone make an assertion.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 01:01:34 AM
Unlike my atheist friends I don't deny I make a belief claim, not a fact claim. I have made a case for it and have linked to it on several occasions. The more I talk with atheists the more I come to think it is cultish. Here we are in a thread with a poll in which 6 respondents claim they are 99.99999% sure no creator exists yet you insist I alone make an assertion.

Echo chamber .... not cultish.  Birds of a feather flock together.  And I am "Super Chicken-Little Man".

Your epistemic argument falls on deaf ears.

Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 06:42:07 AM

Your epistemic argument falls on deaf ears.

That's because his argument falls from a deaf mouth.

QuoteDrew argues that natural forces suffers the same dismal failure as Goddidit.  But does it?.  Drew likes to add his own personal Killer Caveat to what he sees as the universal atheist claim: "Existence is a result of natural forces <add caveat>  ALL THE WAY DOWN!"Whoa!  That makes it sound chilling an ominous as if doom is right around the corner.  It's all the fuckin' way down!

Sorry I gave you such a fright! It just means no deity involved in whatever process caused the existence of the universe all the way down (meaning as far back as events go). It is a mystery to me how the natural forces we're familiar with could cause their own existence but I assume the atheists who are 99% or better certain no Creator was involved must know or they couldn't' possibly be so certain. I just wish they'd share this information and evidence. Instead they say I don't know how the universe came about, when it came about, what forces were involved or if it magically materialized into existence without any cause or why it took on the properties to cause planets, stars and life to exist I just know with nearly 100% certainty no Creator was involved...

QuoteBut do all atheists add that caveat?  I don't know how many do, but I know at least one that doesn't.  Me.  We do know natural forces exist.  We have observed and measured many of them, but... Maybe they aren't really natural ALL THE WAY DOWN.  OK maybe not.

So what?

At the very least it means no one can be 99.999 % certain they just say they are.

Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 06:42:07 AM
Echo chamber .... not cultish.  Birds of a feather flock together.  And I am "Super Chicken-Little Man".

Your epistemic argument falls on deaf ears.

Part of any cult is an us VS them mentality. The slightest lack of faith in core beliefs results in possible expulsion. If just one of the atheists on this board said okay I understand why the existence of intelligent life and the narrow properties of the universe might give you factual reason to think a Creator was involved but I disagree and believe it will ultimately be explained naturalistically they'd be ridiculed and hounded because they violated the core dogmatic principal of atheism that there isn't one fact that comports with theism. That all theists believe in the existence of God for no reason whatsoever and they might just as well believe in tooth fairies invisible pink elephants and so forth.

Maybe there are places in the universe that could be hiding a supernatural realm. Dark matter could be hiding ghosts and gods, or maybe they're in the tightly rolled up dimensions that strings are thought to vibrate in. Maybe the dark energy is God. Or maybe God is antimatter. Maybe God lives in a parallel universe, and only interacted with this one when he created it.

But I see no reason to "believe" that any of those domains is hiding a deity, or any other supernatural entities.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 01:06:24 PM
If just one of the atheists on this board said okay I understand why the existence of intelligent life and the narrow properties of the universe might give you factual reason to think a Creator was involved but I disagree and believe it will ultimately be explained naturalistically they'd be ridiculed and hounded because they violated the core dogmatic principal of atheism that there isn't one fact that comports with theism.

I basically agree with this except I don't see how the narrow properties of the universe are factual reasons to believe in a creator god.  I don't even know what the narrow properties of the universe are.  I know that you have proposed them for the purpose of laying ground rules for a discussion, but I don't see the discussion as relevant.  You have defined the creator as God.  If the universe was created from nothing, I guess you could say a creator force was involved, but why would it be a god?

For the record, I did not respond to your poll, because it wasn't clear to me.  You framed it around certainty, and then offered choices that were partial certainties, none of which would fit me, because I don't identify a degree of uncertainty upon command.  I am just uncertain.   For those that claim to have 100% certainty, there were no choices at all.  It seemed to be designed to take the 100% claim off the table, proving that no one was certain, and requiring no one to justify that claim.  I just didn't know how to respond to the poll.  Is my lack of certainty more valid than someone else's (your's) lack of certainty?  I don't see how this contributes anything to rational discussion when the evidence is not evident to all.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 01:06:24 PM
Part of any cult is an us VS them mentality. The slightest lack of faith in core beliefs results in possible expulsion. If just one of the atheists on this board said okay I understand why the existence of intelligent life and the narrow properties of the universe might give you factual reason to think a Creator was involved but I disagree and believe it will ultimately be explained naturalistically they'd be ridiculed and hounded because they violated the core dogmatic principal of atheism that there isn't one fact that comports with theism. That all theists believe in the existence of God for no reason whatsoever and they might just as well believe in tooth fairies invisible pink elephants and so forth.

Yes, that is how meme socialization works.  Usually one is segregating the general population into friendlies and hostiles, so you can offer the poison Kool-aide to the hostiles as a peace offering ;-)  See the settlement in Germany early on between the Catholics and Lutherans.  But people come here because they are self selected ... they weren't in the Big Brother theater to get the "official" atheist message.  In free church  work, people are also self selected.  It is only when the government or theocracy imposes itself, that control goes from optional to mandatory.

I can't intellectually accept creation ex nihilo anyway ... that was invented in the early Middle Ages, when the world was a much smaller place.  It hasn't been tenable since the invention of the telescope.  In modern Hinduism, it can be accepted that there are different gods for every planet ... no need for complete inflation of a divine ego to infinite proportions, as you must with monotheism.  The various heavens of earlier Hinduism have been transposed to various planets in later Hinduism.  For the same reasons, I can't except transubstantiation of the host, as developed in Medieval Catholicism ... it is metaphysically naive compared to modern knowledge.  I don't even think that Zwingli has it right, as a memorial to the Last Supper.

Modern people simply can't understand incarnation of G-d or gods for that matter.  Ancient people had problems with it to, but for different reasons.  Even in ancient times, there was a movement to place gods or G-d as completely other from nature and mankind ... an impact caused by philosophy.  Acceptance of that transcendent metaphysics makes incarnation impossible to understand.  You have to choose immanence ... which made sense in polytheism ... and can make sense in monotheism too.  But you must expel intellectualization .. including theology.  Plato went to Hell, Homer went to Heaven.  Which is why I call myself and all human beings ... demigods.  Go Homer!

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 13, 2017, 01:17:00 PM
Maybe there are places in the universe that could be hiding a supernatural realm. Dark matter could be hiding ghosts and gods, or maybe they're in the tightly rolled up dimensions that strings are thought to vibrate in. Maybe the dark energy is God. Or maybe God is antimatter. Maybe God lives in a parallel universe, and only interacted with this one when he created it.

But I see no reason to "believe" that any of those domains is hiding a deity, or any other supernatural entities.

Maybe mindless forces without trying or wanting to somehow caused themselves to exist and then without trying or wanting to created a universe with exacting conditions to cause stars, planets, solar systems and then without trying to or wanting to or knowing how to caused something totally unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Though some atheists are over 99% sure no God exists I have yet to hear of some non-god naturalistic model that accounts for what we observe. I guess its a faith proposition that starts with the conclusion a Creator doesn't exist therefore even though we haven't a clue how natural mindless forces did it...they must have. 

Just because we don't know the answers to life, the universe and everything doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that God did it. You've given us no reasons to believe such a thing. If given good reasons we might be persuaded, but so far asking for evidence we just get crickets.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 03:50:17 PM
Maybe mindless forces without trying or wanting to somehow caused themselves to exist and then without trying or wanting to created a universe with exacting conditions to cause stars, planets, solar systems and then without trying to or wanting to or knowing how to caused something totally unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Though some atheists are over 99% sure no God exists I have yet to hear of some non-god naturalistic model that accounts for what we observe. I guess its a faith proposition that starts with the conclusion a Creator doesn't exist therefore even though we haven't a clue how natural mindless forces did it...they must have.

....haven't a clue......the only thing you have said that makes any sense.  You are just so blindingly stupid that it is astounding. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 03:50:17 PM
Maybe mindless forces without trying or wanting to somehow caused themselves to exist and then without trying or wanting to created a universe with exacting conditions to cause stars, planets, solar systems and then without trying to or wanting to or knowing how to caused something totally unlike itself to exist, life and mind. Though some atheists are over 99% sure no God exists I have yet to hear of some non-god naturalistic model that accounts for what we observe. I guess its a faith proposition that starts with the conclusion a Creator doesn't exist therefore even though we haven't a clue how natural mindless forces did it...they must have.

It isn't necessarily and endless regression of cause/effect.  Ancients debated if every effect had a cause.  Aristotle concluded that they didn't.  He didn't have a god (being tutor to Alexander though, he knew a demigod when he saw one).  He had an "unmoved mover" as the point of origin, but as logical necessity, not as temporal cause of causes.  For him, nature (he invented biology) was both living, and temporally eternal.  There was no need for an initial creation in time, and in particular, no creation ex nihilo.  This came back to bite his Medieval supporters later, after "ex nihilo" had been established as dogma in all three Abrahamic religions.  Initial philosophers in Abrahamic faiths had been Platonists.   This is why "falasifa" which meant Aristotelian Muslim philosophers in particular, were propagandistically jihaded by the orthodox.  Initially Aristotelians in Christianity, who were taught by Muslims and Jews (who were Aristotelians) were also judged to be heretics ... but in one of the great turn arounds ... Aquinas, the primary Catholic Aristotelian, had is reputation reversed from heretic to doctor of the Church.  Similarly in Judaism, early Jewish philosophers, who were not Aristotelians, were overcome by the reputation of the great Jewish Aristotelian, Maimonides.  The eventual success of Aristotelianism in Western Christianity and Judaism, is what led eventually to modernity.  Aristotle being initially used to overcome earlier Platonic dogma, and was itself overcome by early modern philosophy (Descartes and Galileo).

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 13, 2017, 03:55:38 PM
Just because we don't know the answers to life, the universe and everything doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that God did it. You've given us no reasons to believe such a thing. If given good reasons we might be persuaded, but so far asking for evidence we just get crickets.

If humans know no answers, why do you claim to have some?

We serve no opinion before its time - Bartles & James

Quote from: SGOS on September 13, 2017, 01:50:10 PM
I basically agree with this except I don't see how the narrow properties of the universe are factual reasons to believe in a creator god.  I don't even know what the narrow properties of the universe are.  I know that you have proposed them for the purpose of laying ground rules for a discussion, but I don't see the discussion as relevant.  You have defined the creator as God.  If the universe was created from nothing, I guess you could say a creator force was involved, but why would it be a god?

The narrow properties of the universe isn't something I made up this is a summary of the six critical values necessary for a universe to be like it is.

All six values featured in this book permit something significant to happen, and to go on happening. Take for instance Q, the one part in 100,000 ratio between the rest mass energy of matter and the force of gravity. Were this ratio a lot smaller, gas would never condense into galaxies. Were it only a bit smaller, star formation would be slow and the raw material for future planets would not survive to form planetary systems. Were it much bigger, stars would collapse swiftly into black holes and the surviving gas would blister the universe with gamma rays.

The measure of nuclear efficiency, ε for epsilon, has a value of 0.007. If it had a value of 0.006 there would be no other elements: hydrogen could not fuse into helium and the stars could not have cooked up carbon, iron, complex chemistry and, ultimately, us. Had it been a smidgen higher, at 0.008, protons would have fused in the big bang, leaving no hydrogen to fuel future stars or deliver the Evian water.

This book was written before dark matter became scientifically accepted as being real. In simulations of galaxies without dark matter galaxies fly apart. The universe itself would look much different there wouldn't be the planet we live on. If your hypothesis is that mindless forces without plan or intent caused the universe and life to exist by chance you'd expect the odds to be far more favorable it would happen by chance. This is why some scientists are proposing this is one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics.

QuoteFor the record, I did not respond to your poll, because it wasn't clear to me.  You framed it around certainty, and then offered choices that were partial certainties, none of which would fit me, because I don't identify a degree of uncertainty upon command.  I am just uncertain.   For those that claim to have 100% certainty, there were no choices at all.  It seemed to be designed to take the 100% claim off the table, proving that no one was certain, and requiring no one to justify that claim.  I just didn't know how to respond to the poll.  Is my lack of certainty more valid than someone else's (your's) lack of certainty?  I don't see how this contributes anything to rational discussion when the evidence is not evident to all.

I just didn't think for a moment given how little we actually know about how the universe came about anyone would have the hubris to claim they are 100% certain. I don't see how one can be 100% certain of anything least of all something that occurred 13.5 billion years ago.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 13, 2017, 03:55:38 PM
Just because we don't know the answers to life, the universe and everything doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that God did it. You've given us no reasons to believe such a thing. If given good reasons we might be persuaded, but so far asking for evidence we just get crickets.

Nor should we jump to the conclusion it was mindless naturalistic forces. I'm not telling anyone what to believe just to fairly consider the possibilities.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 07:31:28 PM
I'm not telling anyone what to believe just to fairly consider the possibilities.

and yet you would reject out of hand, Zeus, Odin, Krishna, Satnam, Popeye.....any god your parents told you was false...only..because they told you which god was real. You are no more than your parents puppet. Can you dance? Meh. Not likely, you preach "consider the possibilities" but you adamantly practice the opposite...."oh hypocrite...can thoust seeth thyself in the water? Can thy heareth thy own lies? Stand still and hear the thy truth, thou liest to thyself"

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 13, 2017, 07:31:28 PM
Nor should we jump to the conclusion it was mindless naturalistic forces. I'm not telling anyone what to believe just to fairly consider the possibilities.

As best as we can tell, the natural is all that exists. No souls, no ghosts, no angels, no demons, and no gods have ever been proven to exist. So it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss the idea that a god created the universe. Now, if your god would like to speak up and make himself plainly known, he's free to do so. Until then, I'm giving the creator story the same amount of credibility as stories of alien abductions.

The supernatural is all that exists.  What differs between us is labeling, and you think that what exists has no order, no life and no consciousness ... aka chaotic materialism.  Sort of fundamentalist anarchism.

Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
The supernatural is all that exists.  What differs between us is labeling, and you think that what exists has no order, no life and no consciousness ... aka chaotic materialism.  Sort of fundamentalist anarchism.

The name 'supernatural' tells us that it does not exist.  And I would agree that much of what differs between us is labeling.  But when you say--you think that what exists has no order, no life and no consciousness ... aka chaotic materialism.  Sort of fundamentalist anarchism.--you are making stuff up again.  I would say that everything has order.  What is alive and what is not is difficult to tell--can you show me a detailed definition of 'alive'?  There is a slippery line between animate and inanimate.  And I am about as far from anarchy as one can get.

Quote from: SGOS on September 13, 2017, 01:50:10 PM
I basically agree with this except I don't see how the narrow properties of the universe are factual reasons to believe in a creator god.  I don't even know what the narrow properties of the universe are.  I know that you have proposed them for the purpose of laying ground rules for a discussion, but I don't see the discussion as relevant.  You have defined the creator as God.  If the universe was created from nothing, I guess you could say a creator force was involved, but why would it be a god?

And we don't know that the properties really are narrow anyway.  They appear tuned to allow us, but that's only because we're looking at it from our end of things.  The properties of the universe only allow us to be.  We're not inherent in them.

The fallacy is that we as a species are implicit in the universe, when the fact is that we're only possible, not necessary.  It's like Douglas Adams' parable of the sentient puddle, that marvels at how the hole it's in happens to fit it so very precisely.  We fit the universe; the universe doesn't fit us.

And really, the vast majority of the universe very much doesn't fit us -- without external support mechanisms, we can only live on part of the minority of dry bits of only one small planet.

We don't know how many stable configurations there are that can result in a long-lived universe in which the laws of physics and chemistry permit biological evolution.  There might be only this one.  There might be uncountable billions.

Had the properties of the universe been otherwise, surely some of whatever evolved out of those rules would be marveling at how that universe appeared designed just for them.  Had the properties been exactly the same and we didn't happen to evolve, the universe would still be here without us.

The only thing we can infer from the fact that our species exists in this universe is that this is a universe in which we can exist.  It may not be the only universe in which we could exist -- nor the only kind of universe that can host sentient life, even if our species can't exist in those.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 12, 2017, 12:56:01 AM
Yeah. We might have had a normal President who doesn't habitually break the law, show absolutely zero competence at the job, or surround themselves with even more incompetent people. We sure dodged a bullet there.

I imagine the US with Hillary as President.  International respect, sensible regulations of rapacious business, some improved environmental controls (not tumbling mountaintops into local streams, fracking earthquakes, and wildly uncertain herbicides released in the wildlife), rational international sanctions on N Korea, China, and Russia,

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
The supernatural is all that exists.  What differs between us is labeling, and you think that what exists has no order, no life and no consciousness ... aka chaotic materialism.  Sort of fundamentalist anarchism.

If the supernatural is all that exists, then it is not supernatural. By definition, supernatural means "beyond nature." What you're describing sounds more like a personification of nature.

Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
The supernatural is all that exists.  What differs between us is labeling, and you think that what exists has no order, no life and no consciousness ... aka chaotic materialism.  Sort of fundamentalist anarchism.

The supernatural is what doesn't exist  You exist, I exist. Plankton exist.   Every living creature exists.  None of us are supernatural.  There is nothing supernatural that has EVER been shown to exist.  Show me actual evidence of anything supernatural, and I will throw you a bone...

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 14, 2017, 09:39:30 AM
If the supernatural is all that exists, then it is not supernatural. By definition, supernatural means "beyond nature." What you're describing sounds more like a personification of nature.

That is like a theist defining atheism (but don't take that negative, just as an example).  Supernatural didn't exist as a word, until the naturalists (atheists) created it.  But like Shaker and Quaker and Christian ... it was taken up by the targets who were being disparaged.  In Hinduism, there is no word for religion.  Originally it had no word for theism, until Charvaka and Atheist Vedanta were invented.  It simply is how people lived.  It was sociopaths who created atheism ... and naturalism.  Such autistic folks do serve as trail blazers for the majority however.  And to label the majority as "other" they came up with a slur ... supernatural, and made an opposite word, natural to sound like a good thing (which it isn't).

If everyone is average, then people don't exist?  As a theist I don't concede anything to atheist Newspeak, even if it is 2500 years old.

Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 01:11:40 PM
That is like a theist defining atheism (but don't take that negative, just as an example).  Supernatural didn't exist as a word, until the naturalists (atheists) created it.  But like Shaker and Quaker and Christian ... it was taken up by the targets who were being disparaged.

I'm going to set my skepticism aside and say outright that I don't believe that.  But I don't have a theistic philosophy, so some credible documentation could change my opinion.

Quote from: SGOS on September 14, 2017, 01:40:26 PM
I'm going to set my skepticism aside and say outright that I don't believe that.  But I don't have a theistic philosophy, so some credible documentation could change my opinion.

OK.  It is still legal to have an opinion.  But that doesn't change facts.  Research the history of secularism, including the word salad ... and you might come up with cole slaw ;-)  Like I told Cavebear ... and as often a theist troll is told ... I won't do your research.  It isn't important enough for me to spend the rest of my short remaining lifetime on it.  I am not saying secularism is wrong .. it is just another Weltanschaung however.  It is useful for moving the theistic status quo off dead center.

Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 01:50:02 PMLike I told Cavebear ... and as often a theist troll is told ... I won't do your research.

Fair enough.  I'll just keep on not believing it, because I don't give a big enough shit to research it either.

Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 01:11:40 PM
That is like a theist defining atheism (but don't take that negative, just as an example).  Supernatural didn't exist as a word, until the naturalists (atheists) created it.  But like Shaker and Quaker and Christian ... it was taken up by the targets who were being disparaged.  In Hinduism, there is no word for religion.  Originally it had no word for theism, until Charvaka and Atheist Vedanta were invented.  It simply is how people lived.  It was sociopaths who created atheism ... and naturalism.  Such autistic folks do serve as trail blazers for the majority however.  And to label the majority as "other" they came up with a slur ... supernatural, and made an opposite word, natural to sound like a good thing (which it isn't).

If everyone is average, then people don't exist?  As a theist I don't concede anything to atheist Newspeak, even if it is 2500 years old.

Aside from most of the nonsense, why "2500 years"?  That means something to you, doesn't it?

Quote from: Baruch on September 13, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
If humans know no answers, why do you claim to have some?

We serve no opinion before its time - Bartles & James

When did I ever claim to have answers? All I've got are questions, and working hypotheses.

Quote from: trdsf on September 13, 2017, 11:43:01 PM
And we don't know that the properties really are narrow anyway.  They appear tuned to allow us, but that's only because we're looking at it from our end of things.  The properties of the universe only allow us to be.  We're not inherent in them.

And this claim is true because of the following facts....?

QuoteThe fallacy is that we as a species are implicit in the universe, when the fact is that we're only possible, not necessary.  It's like Douglas Adams' parable of the sentient puddle, that marvels at how the hole it's in happens to fit it so very precisely.  We fit the universe; the universe doesn't fit us.

Fallacy...a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. The basis for claiming this is a fallacy is the assumption your world view is correct. Until we find other living things that adapted to conditions much different than earth ours is the only life we know of and looking at our own solar system the other planets don't support life. Secondly we don't know the conditions that allow life to start in the first place. I'd say at best its unknown to say whether we fit the universe or it fits us.

QuoteWe don't know how many stable configurations there are that can result in a long-lived universe in which the laws of physics and chemistry permit biological evolution.  There might be only this one.  There might be uncountable billions.

I agree so its a moot point.

QuoteHad the properties of the universe been otherwise, surely some of whatever evolved out of those rules would be marveling at how that universe appeared designed just for them.  Had the properties been exactly the same and we didn't happen to evolve, the universe would still be here without us.

You are projecting your world view assumption that the universe came about unintentionally and that life came about unintentionally to the point that you assume if a universe of different properties arose it too would have life that evolved into sentient life. This is conjecture based on the assumption your world view is correct. The only life we know of factually is life on earth with the properties of the universe we are in. If the day comes we find life in conditions totally hostile to us then you have a basis for conjecture. 

I think the problem here is that theists look at the universe and see the need for a creator, and atheists don't. It's simple, really, just a matter of differing points of view. Some people, for various reasons, just want to have a creator God because it makes them feel safer, somehow, to think that the most powerful possible being cares enough about them to make sure they stay snug and warm inside his loving arms.

But a creator God isn't necessarily a personal loving God anyway. But beliefs are tied more to emotional needs than reasoned fact or practical results.

I wouldn't care what anyone does or does not believe, except that those who can be convinced to believe absurdities can also be persuaded to commit atrocities. We see it every day in the news cycle.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 02:49:54 PM
I think the problem here is that theists look at the universe and see the need for a creator, and atheists don't. It's simple, really, just a matter of differing points of view. Some people, for various reasons, just want to have a creator God because it makes them feel safer, somehow, to think that the most powerful possible being cares enough about them to make sure they stay snug and warm inside his loving arms.

I would turn that around, actually -- they see a god, and they need to make everything be a reason for that god to exist, no matter how much of a non sequitur the claim is.  They're not looking at the universe and deriving a creator, they're looking at a creator first and declaring the universe a 'creation' by fiat.  It's the "But but but... rainbows!  Puppies!  Butterflies!" argument, writ extremely large.

They seem conveniently to forget about the parasites, the tornadoes, the earthquakes, etc. when believing in the absolute goodness of their God.

Isn't that special?

Quote from: trdsf on September 14, 2017, 03:22:50 PM
I would turn that around, actually -- they see a god, and they need to make everything be a reason for that god to exist, no matter how much of a non sequitur the claim is.  They're not looking at the universe and deriving a creator, they're looking at a creator first and declaring the universe a 'creation' by fiat.  It's the "But but but... rainbows!  Puppies!  Butterflies!" argument, writ extremely large.

Atheists don't claim to have the answers.  Certainty is for theists.  What we claim to have are questions I suppose.  Constant questions, and subject to revision as new facts are learned.  There is no revelations or "knowing".  There is always "the best understanding at the moment".

Theists want certainty and that is never possible.  The game is the seeking of information and perception of reality based on understanding what you know at the moment.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:36:17 PM
They seem conveniently to forget about the parasites, the tornadoes, the earthquakes, etc. when believing in the absolute goodness of their God.

Isn't that special?

I love it when they say--Look at nature--isn't it wonderful, isn't it beautiful--there must be a god!  Yet they fail to see the spider paralyzing the fly and sucking it to death.  Beautiful!

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 14, 2017, 06:43:20 PM
I love it when they say--Look at nature--isn't it wonderful, isn't it beautiful--there must be a god!  Yet they fail to see the spider paralyzing the fly and sucking it to death.  Beautiful!

People are just like that ... 4 eyes (if you wear glasses) and bloodsuckers.

All the important things in the Babble aren't true. Creation story, resurrection, divine intervention, etc., all bullshit. Same with all the other gods. And believers don't make it any better, they lie and lie and lie.

Quote from: SGOS on September 14, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Fair enough.  I'll just keep on not believing it, because I don't give a big enough shit to research it either.

Some people who are part of Western civilization, like to claim that they owe nothing to prior generations ... they pulled themselves out of their own hat.  But every letter I type, goes back 3000 years and beyond ... so do the words and concepts.  There is nothing new under the sun .. you Millennials ;-)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on September 14, 2017, 07:27:30 PM
All the important things in the Babble aren't true. Creation story, resurrection, divine intervention, etc., all bullshit. Same with all the other gods. And believers don't make it any better, they lie and lie and lie.

Yes, almost all fiction, like the Odyssey and Herodotus too.  Enjoy heroic poetry or not.  Enjoy patriotic propaganda or not.  For most people, their own consciousness is in a state of psychotic hysterical denial ever since they came out of their mother's birth canal.  They are John Luc Picard ... in the Gamma quadrant etc ... they can't accept themselves.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:36:17 PM
They seem conveniently to forget about the parasites, the tornadoes, the earthquakes, etc. when believing in the absolute goodness of their God.

Isn't that special?

They define goodness in a special way.  I choose not to ... I see reality as amoral.  If you rob, rape and murder people ... I wouldn't be surprised at all.  Just don't virtue signal like a craven coward.  Man up.  This Is Sparta!

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 02:37:48 PM
When did I ever claim to have answers? All I've got are questions, and working hypotheses.

Smart people have questions ... dumb people have answers.  Atheists and theists are both arrogant, both are dumb.  Just don't go full retard into nihilism.

And no, I don't see many working hypotheses here, just people with answers ... with a few exceptions.  They believe the science they read, they aren't scientists themselves.  Like a peasant who can't read, telling the priest what is in the Bible (assuming the priest can read Latin).  This is a natural weakness of democracy.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:36:17 PM
They seem conveniently to forget about the parasites, the tornadoes, the earthquakes, etc. when believing in the absolute goodness of their God.

Isn't that special?

Nah. See, the good stuff is evidence of God. The bad stuff is evidence of sin, for we live in a broken world...which God created.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 14, 2017, 02:01:06 PM
Aside from most of the nonsense, why "2500 years"?  That means something to you, doesn't it?

Maybe according to you, Adam and Eve were the first atheists ;-)  It was only priests who came on later, who screwed things up.

History is your friend, if you bother.  Look up historical atheism.  It dates to secular philosophy in Greece and India, about 2500 years ago.  Not special to me, just a fact.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 14, 2017, 07:38:55 PM
Nah. See, the good stuff is evidence of God. The bad stuff is evidence of sin, for we live in a broken world...which God created.

Did you forget the (sarc)?  The theology you are quoting is OT Jewish.  You are expropriating the memes of a minority, you meany!

Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 07:41:21 PM
Did you forget the (sarc)?  The theology you are quoting is OT Jewish.  You are expropriating the memes of a minority, you meany!

Nah. I've heard people say such things many times in my years at church and religious gatherings. The two claims are rarely said at the same time, though, lest they bring attention to their cognitive dissonance.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 14, 2017, 07:52:54 PM
Nah. I've heard people say such things many times in my years at church and religious gatherings. The two claims are rarely said at the same time, though, lest they bring attention to their cognitive dissonance.

Well, just don't go LARPing around in a yarmulka ;-)  The Catholics might think you are a cardinal.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 03:36:17 PM
They seem conveniently to forget about the parasites, the tornadoes, the earthquakes, etc. when believing in the absolute goodness of their God.

Isn't that special?

I thought tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes were Teh Gays fault.  Funny how the tornadoes and hurricanes never hit San Francisco, or the hurricanes and earthquakes never hit here.

Funny how they never think that they're a message from their god saying "Dumbass, why do you live in a tornado/earthquake/hurricane prone area?"

Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 07:26:02 PM
People are just like that ... 4 eyes (if you wear glasses) and bloodsuckers.

Hey, us 4-eyes have been sufficiently oppressed already, thank you!

Quote from: Baruch on September 14, 2017, 07:38:03 PM
Smart people have questions ... dumb people have answers.  Atheists and theists are both arrogant, both are dumb.  Just don't go full retard into nihilism.

I went "full retard into nihilism" long ago, so your warning comes too late. Nihilism seems to me to be the default world-view until such time as evidence for intrinsic meaning or purpose can be discovered. I don't feel any existential angst about this, nor despair. It's just the way I see the universe, like seeing the color red - I can't help but see it that way, since I'm not color blind.

I think you misquoted ... mechanically, the second half of my statement.

I hope you got my indirect praise (you have questions still).

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 02:49:54 PM
I think the problem here is that theists look at the universe and see the need for a creator, and atheists don't. It's simple, really, just a matter of differing points of view. Some people, for various reasons, just want to have a creator God because it makes them feel safer, somehow, to think that the most powerful possible being cares enough about them to make sure they stay snug and warm inside his loving arms.

I wouldn't see the need of a Creator if we had some inkling of how mindless naturalistic forces accomplished all we observe without trying or wanting to. Suppose there is a Creator of the universe. Would you say that person has to be pretty smart? If the Creator turned out to be a scientist in another universe would you think that scientist is a lot smarter and advanced then we are? You're response should be no a total moron could cause the universe to exist without even trying or wanting to just by pure happenstance. I think the reason most people reject belief in a Creator is because they are fed up with religious beliefs and people, not because they know how our existence came about. I know I'm shifting the burden of evidence to people who claim to be 80% or more sure no Creator was involved.

QuoteI wouldn't care what anyone does or does not believe, except that those who can be convinced to believe absurdities can also be persuaded to commit atrocities. We see it every day in the news cycle.

The belief we owe our existence to mindless mechanistic forces that inexplicably came into existence and proceeded to create a universe that would produce something unlike what it came from, life and mind is fairly absurd. Secondly its not as if we have a working model of how naturalistic forces caused the universe or themselves to exist so it's clearly a counter belief...

Drew ... we don't even need to discuss the Big Bang ... materialists only have mumbo jumbo to explain how mind comes from matter.  This confusion is why they think that computer programs (AI) are conscious, and that robots like in scifi are real.  Epiphenomenalism isn't an explanation, any more than the "god of the gaps" is a proper understanding of religion.  Materialists engage in the same apologetics and polemics as any other ... religion.  The fact that my hand is alive, and that I can be conscious of it ... is beyond physical explanation.  Hence my living hand shows that I am at least a demigod.  Rocks can't do what I can do.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 15, 2017, 11:17:25 PMI know I'm shifting the burden of evidence

I am in complete and utter shock at this totally uncharacteristic behavior.

Quote from: Baruch on September 15, 2017, 11:42:47 PM
Rocks can't do what I can do.

I agree that rocks can't do what you do--sometimes they can do it better.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 16, 2017, 09:02:16 AM
I agree that rocks can't do what you do--sometimes they can do it better.

Guess you are just a rock head ;-)

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 16, 2017, 09:02:16 AM
I agree that rocks can't do what you do--sometimes they can do it better.

What that means for you is--silence can be golden.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 16, 2017, 09:04:55 AM
What that means for you is--silence can be golden.

You wanna see my gold nuggets?

Quote from: Baruch on September 16, 2017, 09:12:25 AM
You wanna see my gold nuggets?

I don't think your nuggets are gold any more.  Mica, maybe??

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 15, 2017, 11:50:46 PM
I am in complete and utter shock at this totally uncharacteristic behavior.

I have my burden to provide evidence and facts to support my claim that God exists which I have often. The poll question was how certain are you God defined as Creator of the universe doesn't exist? To say you're 80 or more certain is a claim. The absurd notion atheists make no claim is atheist folklore. No there isn't some unwritten rule that negative claims get a pass but if they do I will claim to be an anaturalist and take that pass too. I'll even claim my anaturalism is a lack of belief not a disbelief natural forces without plan or intent caused all we observe.

Drew's posts remind me of a bit from CS Lewis's Mere Christianity: it's we atheists who have to maintain that the overwhelming majority of humans who walk and have walked the earth were wrong about the central question of our existence ("Is there a Creator?").

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 16, 2017, 04:21:25 PM
I have my burden to provide evidence and facts to support my claim that God exists which I have often. The poll question was how certain are you God defined as Creator of the universe doesn't exist? To say you're 80 or more certain is a claim. The absurd notion atheists make no claim is atheist folklore. No there isn't some unwritten rule that negative claims get a pass but if they do I will claim to be an anaturalist and take that pass too. I'll even claim my anaturalism is a lack of belief not a disbelief natural forces without plan or intent caused all we observe.

Certainty is not a claim. In this case, it's scepticism. Not all claims are worth equal consideration. Given how no spiritual forces have been observed in a controlled and repeatable setting, 80% certainty or more is quite reasonable.

Quote from: davoarid on September 16, 2017, 09:10:40 PM
Drew's posts remind me of a bit from CS Lewis's Mere Christianity: it's we atheists who have to maintain that the overwhelming majority of humans who walk and have walked the earth were wrong about the central question of our existence ("Is there a Creator?").

I just came across that book the other day, but I haven't read it yet. Too many other things to read first.

I think the idea of God is just obsolete - we have no need of that hypothesis.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 09:19:54 PM
Certainty is not a claim. In this case, it's scepticism. Not all claims are worth equal consideration. Given how no spiritual forces have been observed in a controlled and repeatable setting, 80% certainty or more is quite reasonable.

I realize that saying certainty isn't a claim makes a big splash in this pond in the real market place of ideas its absurd. If you are 80% or more certain why hide behind this ridiculous charade? Is atheism and naturalism such flimsy ideas you afraid to enter the game and stand for what you believe is true?

Here's the problem with attempting to delineate between spiritual and so called natural forces. You would claim right now that the existence of a ghost is a spiritual event correct? What if ghosts did routinely appear and it was observed and repeated in a scientific setting. There would be nothing supernatural or spiritual about it, it would be a known repeatable natural phenomena as is any phenomena that is known to occur no matter how bizarre or unexpected. Or maybe you'll pin the tail on the laws of physics? However we already know the laws of physics differ in the quantum world than they do in a macro world. Does that mean quantum phenomena is supernatural? No because its been observed to occur so even though some observations are inexplicable they're natural. The best theory about the universe is it came out of a singularity a phenomenon in which the laws of physics don't apply. Is that spiritual? Is it a supernatural feat for scientists to create a virtual universe? Is it unnatural?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 16, 2017, 10:39:04 PM
I realize that saying certainty isn't a claim makes a big splash in this pond in the real market place of ideas its absurd. If you are 80% or more certain why hide behind this ridiculous charade? Is atheism and naturalism such flimsy ideas you afraid to enter the game and stand for what you believe is true?

Here's the problem with attempting to delineate between spiritual and so called natural forces. You would claim right now that the existence of a ghost is a spiritual event correct? What if ghosts did routinely appear and it was observed and repeated in a scientific setting. There would be nothing supernatural or spiritual about it, it would be a known repeatable natural phenomena as is any phenomena that is known to occur no matter how bizarre or unexpected. Or maybe you'll pin the tail on the laws of physics? However we already know the laws of physics differ in the quantum world than they do in a macro world. Does that mean quantum phenomena is supernatural? No because its been observed to occur so even though some observations are inexplicable they're natural. The best theory about the universe is it came out of a singularity a phenomenon in which the laws of physics don't apply. Is that spiritual? Is it a supernatural feat for scientists to create a virtual universe? Is it unnatural?

Oh for fuck sake. You cannot be this dense. How certain are you that invisible pink unicorns don't exist? How certain are you that there is no flying spaghetti monster? 50%? 80? How do you justify your claim that neither one exists? Do you have evidence that they don't exist? Do you see how stupid you sound?

Quote from: davoarid on September 16, 2017, 09:10:40 PM
Drew's posts remind me of a bit from CS Lewis's Mere Christianity: it's we atheists who have to maintain that the overwhelming majority of humans who walk and have walked the earth were wrong about the central question of our existence ("Is there a Creator?").

Truth isn't black and white.  It isn't even a fact vs a non-fact ... it is a person vs a non-person.

Quote from: davoarid on September 16, 2017, 09:10:40 PM
Drew's posts remind me of a bit from CS Lewis's Mere Christianity: it's we atheists who have to maintain that the overwhelming majority of humans who walk and have walked the earth were wrong about the central question of our existence ("Is there a Creator?").

Not sure why I never read CS Lewis before.  I guess I didn't recognize his importance, and maybe I confused him with Alice in Wonderland.  So he says the majority of humans who have walked the Earth were wrong about the central question (creator).  Does he claim to know what position the majority held in that regard, and how does he know they were wrong, or is this something the reader understands from the context?  I'm also trying to understand how this is reminiscent of Drew.

Edit:  Disregard that.  I reread your post and about the fourth time, the meaning sunk in.  I get it.  Lewis is shifting the burden as if the fallacy of numbers determines where the burden belongs, while making unwarranted assumptions about what the out group claims.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 16, 2017, 10:39:04 PM
I realize that saying certainty isn't a claim makes a big splash in this pond in the real market place of ideas its absurd. If you are 80% or more certain why hide behind this ridiculous charade? Is atheism and naturalism such flimsy ideas you afraid to enter the game and stand for what you believe is true?

80%, 90%, or 99.99% certainty = uncertainty.  In your mind, what makes this a ridiculous charade?  And, I'm still hung up on why you took 100% certainty off the table in your poll, because it's an odd debate strategy to disallow a 100% certainty in the poll, and then with a wave of the hand say, "Tut, Tut!  80%, 100%; It's all the same." 

They are not the same.

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 12:01:05 AM
Truth isn't black and white.  It isn't even a fact vs a non-fact ... it is a person vs a non-person.

Calling Drew a non-person, I see.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 10:05:16 AM
Calling Drew a non-person, I see.

Actually quite the opposite.  Materialists call themselves and others, non-persons ... but they don't always realize it.  Drew is no more a materialist than I am.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 16, 2017, 11:23:46 PM
Oh for fuck sake. You cannot be this dense. How certain are you that invisible pink unicorns don't exist? How certain are you that there is no flying spaghetti monster? 50%? 80? How do you justify your claim that neither one exists? Do you have evidence that they don't exist? Do you see how stupid you sound?

What do you attribute to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monster or what evidence in favor of their existence do you submit? If you don't attribute anything to their existence and they haven't been observed then its a frivolous claim. If you claim a pink invisible unicorn knocks down all your tools in your garage we can set up a camera and determine if its an invisible unicorn or some neighborhood kid did it. I attribute the existence of the universe and life to a Creator, you attribute it to mindless naturalistic forces. We can't observe the Creator or the mindless forces that you allege caused the universe but we can observe the universe and attempt to determine what caused it (if anything) to exist. You guys should consider retiring this stupid argument, it makes those who use it look foolish. Not to mention its standard atheism 101 argument.

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 10:49:26 AM
Actually quite the opposite.  Materialists call themselves and others, non-persons ... but they don't always realize it.  Drew is no more a materialist than I am.

Sort of odd for you--you are claiming that only you and Drew are actually persons, while the rest of the posters here are non-persons.  That is typical theist thinking--only they (of whatever brand of theism they claim) are persons and the rest are non-persons.  Odd, for you, in that you claim you are not a typical theist.  Yet in this important case, you claim you are.

Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 06:56:36 AM
80%, 90%, or 99.99% certainty = uncertainty.  In your mind, what makes this a ridiculous charade?  And, I'm still hung up on why you took 100% certainty off the table in your poll, because it's an odd debate strategy to disallow a 100% certainty in the poll, and then with a wave of the hand say, "Tut, Tut!  80%, 100%; It's all the same." 

They are not the same.

If a person claims to be a 'weak atheist' they should have no certainty God doesn't exist because they don't deny God exists. What would be the difference between being 99.9999 percent certain and a 100%? My thinking was no one can be a 100% certain of anything. Even things scientifically proven to be factual are only as certain as we can be.

The charade is the claim atheists make no claim. Many of them state with 80% or greater certainty God doesn't exist (out of one side of their mouth) but some how that isn't a claim or a belief. If I said I was 80% sure mindless naturalistic forces alone didn't cause all we observe would you say oh that's fine at least you're not making any claims about it...really?

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 11:19:25 AM
Sort of odd for you--you are claiming that only you and Drew are actually persons, while the rest of the posters here are non-persons.  That is typical theist thinking--only they (of whatever brand of theism they claim) are persons and the rest are non-persons.  Odd, for you, in that you claim you are not a typical theist.  Yet in this important case, you claim you are.

Again, a misreading by literal thinking.  Metaphysically, atheist fundies are very similar to theist fundies .. in their literalism.

No, I don't claim any of you are a non-person ... materialists claim that, and I am a theist, not a materialist.  So you are putting words in my mouth, you are misreading, Derrida style.  And no, I am not a typical theist, but a theist just the same.  If one is a materialist (not all atheists are) ... then one is just a cloud of atoms, no different than the trash in my kitchen trash can.  Is the trash in your kitchen trash can, a person?  Well hopefully not, that would violate rather severely the laws of hospitality.

And the atheists here, in some cases, claim to be ubermenschen.  Something quite a bit more than a mensch.  They aren't materialists.  Nihilists are materialists.  They dismiss, if not hate, their own humanity.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 10:05:16 AM
Calling Drew a non-person, I see.

No worries I've been called worse...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 12:28:44 PM
No worries I've been called worse...

Not worried--but I can imagine................

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 11:29:56 AM
If I said I was 80% sure mindless naturalistic forces alone didn't cause all we observe would you say oh that's fine at least you're not making any claims about it...really?

I would be mildly curious about how you arrived at all this, but not enough to ask you about it.  For weak atheists there is nothing to defend.  Most strong atheists are willing to defend their position.  I won't say I'm convinced by the arguments, however.

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 11:36:50 AM
Again, a misreading by literal thinking.  Metaphysically, atheist fundies are very similar to theist fundies .. in their literalism.

No, I don't claim any of you are a non-person ... materialists claim that, and I am a theist, not a materialist.  So you are putting words in my mouth, you are misreading, Derrida style.  And no, I am not a typical theist, but a theist just the same.  If one is a materialist (not all atheists are) ... then one is just a cloud of atoms, no different than the trash in my kitchen trash can.  Is the trash in your kitchen trash can, a person?  Well hopefully not, that would violate rather severely the laws of hospitality.

And the atheists here, in some cases, claim to be ubermenschen.  Something quite a bit more than a mensch.  They aren't materialists.  Nihilists are materialists.  They dismiss, if not hate, their own humanity.

I can only go by what you say--not what you meant to say, for only you know that.  Same with the world/universe.  I can only go by what I can see (or sense--using one of your senses), not what is meant by what I see.  I don't read between the lines (so to speak) since I don't see any lines and nothing to lead me to think there is anything other than what I see (and what scientific instruments indicate, as well).  God has not presented itself or left any traces of it's existence.  Nature or the material is all around and so far leads me to think that that is all there is.  Until/unless a god(s) steps up, I see no logical reason to think there is such a thing.  I do see plenty of evidence though, that people all over the world have invented god(s) for their own use--to answer questions, to control others, or what have you.  I have seen no evidence to refute that yet. 

As for those labels you are so fond of using, I try not to use them except in the most broad terms, for when a real conversation takes place those terms need to be defined if any sensible communication is to take place.

Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 01:21:05 PM
I would be mildly curious about how you arrived at all this, but not enough to ask you about it.  For weak atheists there is nothing to defend.  Most strong atheists are willing to defend their position.  I won't say I'm convinced by the arguments, however.

The theist and weak atheist have much in common, neither denies God exists. For many weak atheists its a debating tactic more than an actual position so they can pretend they don't have a dog in this hunt. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 02:52:09 PM
The theist and weak atheist have much in common, neither denies God exists.

It seems to me that STRONG atheists have more in common with theists.  Both assert positive claims of knowledge.  The weak atheist makes no claims, which would be the opposite of both the theist and the strong atheist.
 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 02:52:09 PM
For many weak atheists its a debating tactic more than an actual position so they can pretend they don't have a dog in this hunt. 

Truths about self than can only be known by the self.  However, speaking for myself, weak atheists most definitely do have a dog in the hunt, but it's just not YOUR hunt (the "prove god does not exist" hunt).  Weak atheists are plenty capable of finding lots of debate points with theists.  They seldom shy from confrontation.  Weak atheist arguments are centered around testing the claims of theists, but finding no credible evidence for a god.  They are not searching for evidence of NOT god, which is (so I've been told) logically absurd.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 17, 2017, 11:18:07 AM
What do you attribute to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monster or what evidence in favor of their existence do you submit?

The same evidence you claim is in favor of your God.  Both arguments are equally stupid of course, yet you hold one as the height of wisdom and the other as nonsense because one backs a conclusion you already hold and one does not.

It would be nice if we could find some term other than "God" to call the thing Drew's trying to talk about. There are too many - and yet, too few - definitions of this "God" thing. We, none of us, even know what we're talking about when we use the word "God" because everyone has a different conception of just what that is.

So what is this god thing we either do or don't believe in?

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 17, 2017, 04:48:10 PM
It would be nice if we could find some term other than "God" to call the thing Drew's trying to talk about. There are too many - and yet, too few - definitions of this "God" thing. We, none of us, even know what we're talking about when we use the word "God" because everyone has a different conception of just what that is.

So what is this god thing we either do or don't believe in?

For some no god means ...
0. Nihilism - there is nothing
1. Materialism - there is something material (Descartes and Gassendi)
2. Physicalism - there is something physical (Newton and Coulomb)
3. Naturalism - there is something natural (Linnaeus and Darwin)
4. Psychologism - this is my position, it means no conventional religion god, it is all in one's head

I consider existence and non-existence, order and disorder, life and non-life, consciousness and unconsciousness to be axiomatic ... with self consciousness at the top (see Descartes).

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 17, 2017, 04:48:10 PM
It would be nice if we could find some term other than "God" to call the thing Drew's trying to talk about. There are too many - and yet, too few - definitions of this "God" thing. We, none of us, even know what we're talking about when we use the word "God" because everyone has a different conception of just what that is.

So what is this god thing we either do or don't believe in?

How about any force other than that found in nature; a supernatural or unnatural force.  That seems simple--but it's not, for the theists will turn the 'I don't knows' that we have uncovered with scientific inquiry, into god. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 04:58:12 PM
How about any force other than that found in nature; a supernatural or unnatural force.  That seems simple--but it's not, for the theists will turn the 'I don't knows' that we have uncovered with scientific inquiry, into god.

Covered in #3 above or #2.  #3 doesn't imply physical reductionism.  So depends on what you mean by force.

Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2017, 05:07:23 PM
Covered in #3 above or #2.  #3 doesn't imply physical reductionism.  So depends on what you mean by force.

You and I must have posted at the same time--did not read your post until after I had posted.  Anyway, it does depend upon what I mean by force.  That's the problem with trying to define god(s).  We end up with two sides, on that focuses upon belief and the other that focuses upon empirical proof.  The two don't mix well.  I don't know if we can come to a definition that is acceptable to everybody.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 17, 2017, 04:58:12 PM
How about any force other than that found in nature; a supernatural or unnatural force.  That seems simple--but it's not, for the theists will turn the 'I don't knows' that we have uncovered with scientific inquiry, into god. 

That's really the whole point about theistic denial of anything that is the handiwork of God.  The creation debate is about god.  Existence is about God.  You try to label the creation without calling it God, and they will be invading the forum like a Mongol hoard as soon as they realize it was a trick to take God out of creation all along.

let them take god out of creation... it's not like we're gonna miss him

(http://damienmarieathope.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/10250336_655237397953111_2419748125068664376_n.jpg)

Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 04:40:17 PM
It seems to me that STRONG atheists have more in common with theists.  Both assert positive claims of knowledge.  The weak atheist makes no claims, which would be the opposite of both the theist and the strong atheist.

I prefer to file 'god' in the same bin as phlogiston and luminiferous æther -- a theory of reality that has been superseded by better knowledge, and barring the discovery of evidence for it, a theory no longer worth taking seriously in the first place.  So I feel perfectly comfortable making the positive statement 'there is no god' in precisely the same way I can say there is no phlogiston, caloric, or luminiferous æther.  I am willing to entertain new evidence, but it's not incumbent on me to go looking for it, nor am I obliged to take claims for it seriously without concrete and repeatable evidence.  The idea that I can't simply reject the idea of a god on the basis of absolutely no evidence is like saying I have to be agnostic about leprechauns, Santa and the Tooth Fairy.  And if I told you I though the jury was still out on phlogiston, you'd think I was barking mad -- or at least not to be trusted on matters of science.

I mean, CERN doesn't double-check that the luminiferous æther theory is still a failure before using Special and/or General Relativity, and no one expects them to.

If that makes me a 'strong atheist', I accept the label, but I reject the idea that I come to my conclusion in the same manner theists come to theirs, or adhere to it out of 'faith'.  Give me a something testable that passes skeptical inquiry, and I will be happy to say there may be a god or gods.  Until then, I don't have to.

Quote from: trdsf on September 18, 2017, 05:01:52 PM
I am willing to entertain new evidence, but it's not incumbent on me to go looking for it, nor am I obliged to take claims for it seriously without concrete and repeatable evidence.  The idea that I can't simply reject the idea of a god on the basis of absolutely no evidence is like saying I have to be agnostic about leprechauns...

For roughly the first half of my life, I was THAT guy who felt it WAS incumbent on me.  I was trained to believe the consequences of doubt were dire, and that knowing there was a god was a matter of utmost importance.  If there really was a god, at least the Bible god, that would be true too; It would be a matter of utmost importance.  I was unable to understand that from any other perspective because it was hammered into my brain beginning at a time far back when I first remember being conscious enough to grasp a thought.

I consider myself a weak atheist because I have never found God.  And that's about it.  During my quest, I never once entertained the idea of proving there was no god.  I'd like to think at a young age, I understood that logically you couldn't prove a negative, but to be honest, I don't think I was that smart.  Although, to prove God did not exist would have sufficed, because my only need was to answer the existence question one way or the other.  But my quest was always directed at finding god, in nature, my heart, the back of my brain, or wherever.  It was never an attempt to conclude that there was no god.  That is weak atheism to me, and that's where I eventually let it end.

I have no need to pursue the quest any longer, and no need to drive a final nail in God's coffin.  After 40 or so years, the search became meaningless.  God cannot be found by any method that really settles the question, and I carry on without bothering with the irrelevance of a god.  No, I actually don't think there is a god.  The pedants can argue over whether that is weak or strong atheism, but the issue is far too irrelevant for me to concern myself with any longer.

Like you, it would be like devoting my life to searching for leprechauns and unicorns.  If someone challenges me to prove God does not exist, I just mutter, "fuck off," and talk about his shit for a while, so as not to be antisocial.  Is there a god?  I just don't care.  It's impossible to even engage in an intelligent conversation about it, at least with a believer.

Quote from: trdsf on September 18, 2017, 05:01:52 PM
I prefer to file 'god' in the same bin as phlogiston and luminiferous æther -- a theory of reality that has been superseded by better knowledge, and barring the discovery of evidence for it, a theory no longer worth taking seriously in the first place.  So I feel perfectly comfortable making the positive statement 'there is no god' in precisely the same way I can say there is no phlogiston, caloric, or luminiferous æther.  I am willing to entertain new evidence, but it's not incumbent on me to go looking for it, nor am I obliged to take claims for it seriously without concrete and repeatable evidence.  The idea that I can't simply reject the idea of a god on the basis of absolutely no evidence is like saying I have to be agnostic about leprechauns, Santa and the Tooth Fairy.  And if I told you I though the jury was still out on phlogiston, you'd think I was barking mad -- or at least not to be trusted on matters of science.

I mean, CERN doesn't double-check that the luminiferous æther theory is still a failure before using Special and/or General Relativity, and no one expects them to.

If that makes me a 'strong atheist', I accept the label, but I reject the idea that I come to my conclusion in the same manner theists come to theirs, or adhere to it out of 'faith'.  Give me a something testable that passes skeptical inquiry, and I will be happy to say there may be a god or gods.  Until then, I don't have to.

How soon we forget about the recent brouhaha about a potential violation of C as the speed limit of light.  Turns out the experimental setup was ... screwed up.  But it could turn out to be true, that Einstein is wrong.  Niels Bohr said so any change he got.

Quote from: SGOS on September 18, 2017, 06:39:23 PM
For roughly the first half of my life, I was THAT guy who felt it WAS incumbent on me.  I was trained to believe the consequences of doubt were dire, and that knowing there was a god was a matter of utmost importance.  If there really was a god, at least the Bible god, that would be true too; It would be a matter of utmost importance.  I was unable to understand that from any other perspective because it was hammered into my brain beginning at a time far back when I first remember being conscious enough to grasp a thought.

I consider myself a weak atheist because I have never found God.  And that's about it.  During my quest, I never once entertained the idea of proving there was no god.  I'd like to think at a young age, I understood that logically you couldn't prove a negative, but to be honest, I don't think I was that smart.  Although, to prove God did not exist would have sufficed, because my only need was to answer the existence question one way or the other.  But my quest was always directed at finding god, in nature, my heart, the back of my brain, or wherever.  It was never an attempt to conclude that there was no god.  That is weak atheism to me, and that's where I eventually let it end.

I have no need to pursue the quest any longer, and no need to drive a final nail in God's coffin.  After 40 or so years, the search became meaningless.  God cannot be found by any method that really settles the question, and I carry on without bothering with the irrelevance of a god.  No, I actually don't think there is a god.  The pedants can argue over whether that is weak or strong atheism, but the issue is far to irrelevant for me to concern myself with any longer.

Like you, it would be like devoting my life to searching for leprechauns and unicorns.  If someone challenges me to prove God does not exist, I just mutter, "fuck off," and talk about his shit for a while, so as not to be antisocial.  Is there a god?  I just don't care.  It's impossible to even engage in an intelligent conversation about it, at least with a believer.

If only you had gotten to see The Search for the Holy Grail by Monty Python, at a younger age.  You could have gotten your hands on the holy hand grenade of Antioch, and blown your doubts away!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Gregorian Chant prevents the need for radiation suits which weren't invented yet.

Quote from: SGOS on September 17, 2017, 04:40:17 PM
It seems to me that STRONG atheists have more in common with theists.  Both assert positive claims of knowledge.  The weak atheist makes no claims, which would be the opposite of both the theist and the strong atheist.

Theism whether philosophical or religious is a belief, its often referred to as a faith. When people say they 'know' God exists they are referring to some subjective knowledge they claim confirms God's existence which perhaps for them it does. True the weak atheist doesn't deny God exists. If someone claims to be a weak atheist it would be pointless to have a debate about whether God exists because they don't deny God exists and either does the theist. Sooner or later the weak theist lets the cat out of the bag and makes a statement that reveals their true opinion.

Quotearguments are centered around testing the claims of theists, but finding no credible evidence for a god.  They are not searching for evidence of NOT god, which is (so I've been told) logically absurd.

That depends on if they're weak anaturalists as well. That is to say they don't reject the claims of naturalism they just lack that belief due to lack of evidence. In my experience they never are remotely skeptical of naturalism (defined as mindless natural forces without plan or intent causing all we observe) its only theism they are skeptical of. Why the bias?Since there very position depends on no evidence, no fact presented will be called evidence because they say so.

The existence of the universe alone is a fact (evidence) it was caused by naturalistic forces its just as probable it was caused by a Creator. Since weak atheists don't deny God exists they can't deny God caused the universe to exist also. To the best of our knowledge things are caused to exist intentionally or caused unintentionally by unguided forces. The existence of the universe is perfectly valid evidence it was caused by naturalistic forces its also (barring a better naturalistic explanation) valid evidence it was caused by a Creator. When people say what leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator? The existence of the universe with the properties to cause sentient life to exist and lack of a better explanation.   

What do you attribute to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monster or what evidence in favor of their existence do you submit?

Quote from: Hydra009 linktopic=11931.msg1192091#msg1192091 date=1505681008
The same evidence you claim is in favor of your God.  Both arguments are equally stupid of course, yet you hold one as the height of wisdom and the other as nonsense because one backs a conclusion you already hold and one does not.

No just because you say belief in invisible pink unicorns is the same as belief in a Creator of the universe doesn't make it so anymore than if I said belief in naturalism is as stupid as belief in the flying spaghetti monster. Are you ever going to up your responses to something you actually thought of yourself rather than these shopworn arguments you always resort to? Let me know if you ever come up with something original.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 11:35:56 PM
What do you attribute to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monster or what evidence in favor of their existence do you submit?

No just because you say belief in invisible pink unicorns is the same as belief in a Creator of the universe doesn't make it so anymore than if I said belief in naturalism is as stupid as belief in the flying spaghetti monster. Are you ever going to up your responses to something you actually thought of yourself rather than these shopworn arguments you always resort to? Let me know if you ever come up with something original.

I am constantly amused by people who confuse their "certainty of faith" with facts.  I am also utterly angered and frustrated by the same.  NO degree of faith has any connection to "fact".

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
Theism whether philosophical or religious is a belief, its often referred to as a faith. When people say they 'know' God exists they are referring to some subjective knowledge they claim confirms God's existence which perhaps for them it does.

This is why theism has more in common with strong atheism than weak atheism.  Both claim to know something.  Whether the epistemology is based on knowing by way of faith or knowing by way of facts, they both claim truth based on the knowledge claim.  KNOWLEDGE is what separates strong atheism from weak atheism, not some arbitrary tipping point where one is actually stronger than the other  Strong atheism just claims knowledge, as does faith based theism.  At least this is the definition I learned.  Some self identified strong atheists contest that definition, as I'm guessing you do.  Such is the weakness of semantic arguments, which I usually try to avoid.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
True the weak atheist doesn't deny God exists. If someone claims to be a weak atheist it would be pointless to have a debate about whether God exists because they don't deny God exists and either does the theist.

I disagree that the debate is pointless.  You have only stated half the issue when you claim that neither the weak atheist or the theist denies God's existence.  What you ignore is that the weak atheist does not hold a belief in God, while the theist does.  This is a major oversight, and therein is where the debate and discussions of epistemology and logic take place.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
Sooner or later the weak theist lets the cat out of the bag and makes a statement that reveals their true opinion.

You make it sound like letting the cat out of the bag is when a weak atheist reveals he has actual knowledge.  If he makes a claim, it would be good practice to justify it, as trdsf did earlier in regards to epistemology.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
In my experience they [weak atheists] never are remotely skeptical of naturalism (defined as mindless natural forces without plan or intent causing all we observe) its only theism they are skeptical of. Why the bias? 

That's probably because there is no strong reason to be skeptical of natural forces.  We can observe them, and indeed they do appear to be mindless, even if someone else tries to imply they do have a mind.  However, skepticism does apply to "where it all came from" because we have no evidence for or against creation (defined as something coming from nothing).  No evidence for or against any force existing prior to the universe that would have exerted a causal effect, and no evidence for against there always being something there.  I would be skeptical of any answer at this point.  But natural forces have been observed.  God, not so much.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 18, 2017, 09:59:01 PM
The existence of the universe alone is a fact (evidence) it was caused by naturalistic forces its just as probable it was caused by a Creator. Since weak atheists don't deny God exists they can't deny God caused the universe to exist also. To the best of our knowledge things are caused to exist intentionally or caused unintentionally by unguided forces. The existence of the universe is perfectly valid evidence it was caused by naturalistic forces its also (barring a better naturalistic explanation) valid evidence it was caused by a Creator. When people say what leads me to believe we owe our existence to a Creator? The existence of the universe with the properties to cause sentient life to exist and lack of a better explanation.   

I accept that is your opinion.  But my opinion is that "existence, therefore Creator" is non sequitur, and is customarily avoided in logic.  That doesn't make it wrong of course.  Hell, I don't even deny a creator.  It just makes it illogical.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 01:59:31 AM
NO degree of faith has any connection to "fact".

Which is the definition of faith.

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 02:10:42 AM
Which is the definition of faith.

Which is why any mention of "faith" has to be considered irrational and illogical.

now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

hmm things hoped for - that's a verb, and substance is a noun ... so we have to change everything into a noun for it to make sense. got it. its a birthday wish, ya that's it. a birthday wish (wishful thinking) is the substance of things hoped for.

and the other part faith is the evidence of things not seen, that means faith provides the proof of existence of things you can't see

if we put that all together we get a birthday wish is the proof of the existence of things you can't see; like god.

well I'm glad we got that settled


I think Cavebear will be munchin on pink unicorns before Trump becomes a good president. And Trump will become a good president long before we get the real proof of creation that Drew is looking for.

Quote from: fencerider on September 19, 2017, 03:10:20 AM
now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

hmm things hoped for - that's a verb, and substance is a noun ... so we have to change everything into a noun for it to make sense. got it. its a birthday wish, ya that's it. a birthday wish (wishful thinking) is the substance of things hoped for.

and the other part faith is the evidence of things not seen, that means faith provides the proof of existence of things you can't see

if we put that all together we get a birthday wish is the proof of the existence of things you can't see; like god.

well I'm glad we got that settled


I think Cavebear will be munchin on pink unicorns before Trump becomes a good president. And Trump will become a good president long before we get the real proof of creation that Drew is looking for.

I present you with a prize for humor...  Take it lightly for the joke of it...

Quote from: fencerider on September 19, 2017, 03:10:20 AM
now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

hmm things hoped for - that's a verb, and substance is a noun ... so we have to change everything into a noun for it to make sense. got it.

Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.

Quantum flow field healing process crystals.

[spoiler]I just made that shit up on the spot.[/spoiler]

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.

I am SO GLAD I'm not the only one who thinks Chopra is an idiot! 

I don't think he's an idiot, but a very smart, well-practiced manipulator of words that sound profound but are merely misleading.

Some cons are good at what they do and take pride in their ability to mislead others.  It's a skill, like computer programming or chemical engineering.  Many lucrative sources of personal income are based on skills of deception.  The good con artists are rich, famous, and powerful.

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 10:56:50 AM
Some cons are good at what they do and take pride in their ability to mislead others.  It's a skill, like computer programming or chemical engineering.  Many lucrative sources of personal income are based on skills of deception.  The good con artists are rich, famous, and powerful.

Apparently one of the easier fields for these people is in religion.  Just channel surf after midnight and note how many of these rich fleecers there are.

Fleecing flocks for felonious financing?

Yesterday evening in prime time, there was a TV commercial for 'Magical Spring Water' made so by a Popoff (minister I guess)--this would result in your getting money from an unanticipated source--and this is free, of course.  Prime time, no less.  I bet he doesn't drive an old VW!

I bet he doesn't drive a new VW either.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 10:47:59 AM
I don't think he's an idiot, but a very smart, well-practiced manipulator of words that sound profound but are merely misleading.

Sorry, my definition of "idiot" is rather broad.  Manipulating scammers fit right in there.

No, he probably drives a fancy new car and drinks $3000 dollar bottles of wine.  Scammers like him do that to show off their Illegitimate  ill-gotten gains among themselves out of sight of the suckers they prey on.

I don't mind people enjoying legitimate wealth.  It's the excess of price over value that curls my neck hairs...

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 02:08:53 AM
This is why theism has more in common with strong atheism than weak atheism.  Both claim to know something.  Whether the epistemology is based on knowing by way of faith or knowing by way of facts, they both claim truth based on the knowledge claim.  KNOWLEDGE is what separates strong atheism from weak atheism, not some arbitrary tipping point where one is actually stronger than the other  Strong atheism just claims knowledge, as does faith based theism.  At least this is the definition I learned.  Some self identified strong atheists contest that definition, as I'm guessing you do.  Such is the weakness of semantic arguments, which I usually try to avoid.

Probably best if I spoke for myself only. Theism is a belief I have about the most basic question that can be asked. Why is there a universe? Why do we exist? How and why did it come about that we exist? Was it some fortuitous act of serendipity or was it intentionally caused? Unfortunately evidence is often a mixed bag. The Jon Bennet Ramsey case is a perfect example. A strong circumstantial case can be made for accusing or exonerating her parents from the evidence.

QuoteI disagree that the debate is pointless.  You have only stated half the issue when you claim that neither the weak atheist or the theist denies God's existence.  What you ignore is that the weak atheist does not hold a belief in God, while the theist does.  This is a major oversight, and therein is where the debate and discussions of epistemology and logic take place.You make it sound like letting the cat out of the bag is when a weak atheist reveals he has actual knowledge.  If he makes a claim, it would be good practice to justify it, as trdsf did earlier in regards to epistemology.

I do end up debating those who claim to be weak atheists but they typically reveal their inner strong atheist before too long and their clear bias toward naturalistic explanations in lieu of evidence.

QuoteThat's probably because there is no strong reason to be skeptical of natural forces.  We can observe them, and indeed they do appear to be mindless, even if someone else tries to imply they do have a mind.  However, skepticism does apply to "where it all came from" because we have no evidence for or against creation (defined as something coming from nothing).  No evidence for or against any force existing prior to the universe that would have exerted a causal effect, and no evidence for against there always being something there.  I would be skeptical of any answer at this point.  But natural forces have been observed.  God, not so much.

I appreciate your objectivity...one caveat naturalistic forces exist but no one is proposing the naturalistic forces we observe caused their own existence. The only reason we exist is because the naturalistic forces we observe seem to have rules of behavior that allow our existence.

QuoteI accept that is your opinion.  But my opinion is that "existence, therefore Creator" is non sequitur, and is customarily avoided in logic.  That doesn't make it wrong of course.  Hell, I don't even deny a creator.  It just makes it illogical.

The existence of the universe is only one line of evidence in favor of theism. By itself inconclusive.

OK, so what other "lines of evidence" favor theism?

Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 02:22:16 AM
Which is why any mention of "faith" has to be considered irrational and illogical.

Not necessarily. I know the popular definition of faith is believing in something without a shred of evidence its true. An even greater faith is to believe when the evidence is contrary to something believed. Its a nuanced word also. I can't think of a greater leap of faith then when a pilot lands a plane in complete darkness using only on board instruments. He has to have faith in those instruments because he has no way of confirming if what they report is true.

You're confusing the meaning of the word faith, as in "confidence" with faith as in "belief." They aren't the same at all.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 07:18:48 PM
OK, so what other "lines of evidence" favor theism?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 07:22:18 PM
You're confusing the meaning of the word faith, as in "confidence" with faith as in "belief." They aren't the same at all.

faith
fāTH/Submit
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

You just want it to mean belief in something for no reason.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 19, 2017, 07:18:56 PM
Not necessarily. I know the popular definition of faith is believing in something without a shred of evidence its true. An even greater faith is to believe when the evidence is contrary to something believed. Its a nuanced word also. I can't think of a greater leap of faith then when a pilot lands a plane in complete darkness using only on board instruments. He has to have faith in those instruments because he has no way of confirming if what they report is true.

This is a huge problem, Drew.  How you explain faith.  I like to think I have faith in nothing--nor believe in nothing.  Let me explain.  When that pilot lands that plane in fog or darkness, I don't need either faith or belief--I trust he will land the craft safely because of his training and experience.  His instruments have been tested many times, and functioned in the situation he was in many times and found adequate.  My trust comes from, not faith, but thinking he has done it before successfully and that he is going to do it again.  Actually evidence shows that he will do so successfully.

For you it seems faith and trust are the same thing.  This is what the bible says:  "Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  If I were to have any evidence of things not seen, I would then accept that evidence and act upon it accordingly.  But evidence means something substantial, not something hinted at or suggested. 

Do you see why we keep butting heads abut this?

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Poetry often utilizes word play to change intent and meaning, and the word flow has a hypnotic effect causing people to accept gibberish as truth.  It can actually sound like profound truth, but it's still just gibberish.  We see this technique used by Deepak Chopra and everyday Bible thumpers.

Thank you Plato.  Homer is still more fun to read than you are ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 10:47:59 AM
I don't think he's an idiot, but a very smart, well-practiced manipulator of words that sound profound but are merely misleading.

There are many Easterners who have bamboozled Westerners.  We are very gullible compared to Hindu villagers and have more money to give.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2017, 11:48:47 AM
Sorry, my definition of "idiot" is rather broad.  Manipulating scammers fit right in there.

Fascism arrives in America, wrapped in a flag and thumping a Bible.  But either major party qualifies.  What do you have against "caveat emptor" and Madison Avenue?

Quote from: SGOS on September 19, 2017, 10:56:50 AM
Some cons are good at what they do and take pride in their ability to mislead others.  It's a skill, like computer programming or chemical engineering.  Many lucrative sources of personal income are based on skills of deception.  The good con artists are rich, famous, and powerful.

Founders of religions, regimes or whole countries ... are mega scammers.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 11:05:55 AM
Fleecing flocks for felonious financing?

The only way to make a dishonest buck.  And since 1971, all bucks are dishonest ... just ask Nixon.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 19, 2017, 07:42:24 PM
This is a huge problem, Drew.  How you explain faith.  I like to think I have faith in nothing--nor believe in nothing.  Let me explain.  When that pilot lands that plane in fog or darkness, I don't need either faith or belief--I trust he will land the craft safely because of his training and experience.  His instruments have been tested many times, and functioned in the situation he was in many times and found adequate.  My trust comes from, not faith, but thinking he has done it before successfully and that he is going to do it again.  Actually evidence shows that he will do so successfully.

For you it seems faith and trust are the same thing.  This is what the bible says:  "Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  If I were to have any evidence of things not seen, I would then accept that evidence and act upon it accordingly.  But evidence means something substantial, not something hinted at or suggested. 

Do you see why we keep butting heads abut this?

Faith in English, comes from Fides in Latin, which means trust.  It is atheists who have corrupted the dictionary in this case.  I agree about the pilot ... there is evidence that he will be successful in less than optimum landing conditions.  Blind faith ... is a corruption of language.  The proper term would be blind idiocy ... and the use of "blind faith" is an ad hominem.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 19, 2017, 07:42:24 PM
This is a huge problem, Drew.  How you explain faith.  I like to think I have faith in nothing--nor believe in nothing.  Let me explain.  When that pilot lands that plane in fog or darkness, I don't need either faith or belief--I trust he will land the craft safely because of his training and experience.  His instruments have been tested many times, and functioned in the situation he was in many times and found adequate.  My trust comes from, not faith, but thinking he has done it before successfully and that he is going to do it again.  Actually evidence shows that he will do so successfully.

For you it seems faith and trust are the same thing.  This is what the bible says:  "Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  If I were to have any evidence of things not seen, I would then accept that evidence and act upon it accordingly.  But evidence means something substantial, not something hinted at or suggested. 

Do you see why we keep butting heads abut this?

Sure if you hold to faith as defined by this passage. However if you take the letter in context, it was an exhortation to keep the faith in Christian belief even in the light of persecution at the time. I was using the word as defined in English.

I can give you an examples where this is true. Being honest to others and yourself is often very difficult and not always rewarding on the spot. The belief is in the long run it will be and so its the best policy even though the situation at the time may not seem like it. The belief we should treat others as we want to be treated, do we do that because it magically means we'll always be treated as we want to be? No because we have 'faith' doing the right thing if nothing else is it's own reward and will eventually come back to us.

As I get closer and closer to Christianity (from atheism), one thing that is helping is the realization that "faith" is like "love," in that they can be both expressions of feeling and expressions of will. I'll let CS Lewis explain the "love" part:

QuoteDo not waste time bothering whether you love your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets: when you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him. If you injure someone you dislike, you will find yourself disliking him more. If you do him a good turn, you will find yourself disliking him less.

Whenever we do good to another self, just because it is another self, like us, made by God and desiring its own happiness as we desire ours, we shall have learned to love it a little more.

EG: I can love my wife the same way I love bacon: she makes me feel all special inside. But one day that feeling will likely fade...but after it does, I can still make the decision--the act of will--to continue loving her.

I think faith has the same duality of meaning. It can mean belief in things without evidence. Often this is based on a feeling (eg, I'm a Royals fan, so I believe they can still win the World Series, despite the overwhelming odds against it). But it can also be a decision (i.e., an act of will): I can choose to set my powers of rationality aside and instead replace it with a faith in God and Christ.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 12:02:33 AM
Sure if you hold to faith as defined by this passage. However if you take the letter in context, it was an exhortation to keep the faith in Christian belief even in the light of persecution at the time. I was using the word as defined in English.

How is the word defined in English?

But the passage from Hebrews was written in English; and used in that format in a couple of churches I have attended in the past.  And I don't think the 'persecution' was nearly as bad as it's made out to be.  In any case, it is telling people to take something without evidence.  Of course christian leaders would say this--more money and power for them.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 12:02:33 AM
I can give you an examples where this is true. Being honest to others and yourself is often very difficult and not always rewarding on the spot. The belief is in the long run it will be and so its the best policy even though the situation at the time may not seem like it. The belief we should treat others as we want to be treated, do we do that because it magically means we'll always be treated as we want to be? No because we have 'faith' doing the right thing if nothing else is it's own reward and will eventually come back to us.

I have learned from trial and error, that being honest is the best for you, especially in the long run.  I have also learned that being brutally honest is bad in both the short and long term.  I have basically modeled my life on the golden rule.  And, of course, there is nothing magic about it.  It has nothing to do with 'faith'.  I have learned from my past experiences and from watching those around me.  And yes, doing the 'right' thing is it's own reward, for it makes me feel good about myself and it usually works out best for me to act that way.  I really like the Wicca way of saying it--first, do no harm; combined with the golden rule it provides a great guideline to live by.  I've used this example before, but here it is again.  I don't have faith or a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow (ya, ya, I know it does not 'rise' but we are rotating); I think it will from past experience and the scientific reasoning of why that is.  Don't need faith nor belief.  If you say something is, then show me.  And I mean you, my neighbors, my teachers, my or any, god(s).  Show me.

Quote from: davoarid on September 20, 2017, 03:41:42 PM
As I get closer and closer to Christianity (from atheism), one thing that is helping is the realization that "faith" is like "love," in that they can be both expressions of feeling and expressions of will. I'll let CS Lewis explain the "love" part:
EG: I can love my wife the same way I love bacon: she makes me feel all special inside. But one day that feeling will likely fade...but after it does, I can still make the decision--the act of will--to continue loving her.

I think faith has the same duality of meaning. It can mean belief in things without evidence. Often this is based on a feeling (eg, I'm a Royals fan, so I believe they can still win the World Series, despite the overwhelming odds against it). But it can also be a decision (i.e., an act of will): I can choose to set my powers of rationality aside and instead replace it with a faith in God and Christ.

My love of bacon has been with me all my life.  I'm sure it will remain to the end.  My love for my wife will remain as well.  Both of those things do not need faith.  I know from experience how both of those 'feelings' will fare.  I may stop loving my wife if the situation is such that she begins mistreating me; I don't need faith to tell me that or to help me get through rough patches.  I know from experience what life can bring and why.  I don't use faith or belief to help me make decisions.  I use facts and evidence.  Why would I want to set my rationality aside?  Then I am making decisions on whims and wishes.  Your god and christ are fictions.  They are not real.  You can sincerely believe and have the strongest faith that they are real.  Sincerity does not make anything real; does not make anything right. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 20, 2017, 05:40:06 PM
How is the word defined in English?

But the passage from Hebrews was written in English; and used in that format in a couple of churches I have attended in the past.  And I don't think the 'persecution' was nearly as bad as it's made out to be.  In any case, it is telling people to take something without evidence.  Of course christian leaders would say this--more money and power for them.

The original was written in Judeo-Greek, by hellenized Jews, and early on.  Melkizedek had his own cult, and the Jesus followers are attaching themselves to it.  The persecution that the sermon (it isn't a letter and it isn't by Paul) speaks of, was circa135 CE or before maybe as far back as the 30s CE.  It would have been persecution by fellow Jews, not Greco-Romans most likely.  English won't cut it, taking it out of cultural and historical context won't cut it.  But in that case, it has little to say to us today, though it is crucial to early Johannine theology.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 19, 2017, 07:29:39 PM
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jex6k2uvf9aljrq/theism.rtf?dl=0

So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 20, 2017, 08:54:35 PM
So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes. I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist. If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

Atheism not tenable unless it's also paired with omniscience?

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/db/db451cc550126738b8f31033ede9591fbfe31aaf7c45c9a5775c40e0e871d554.jpg)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 09:31:33 PM
The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes.

I do not detest god(s), creator(s) (which suggests that I accept they exist, but I detest them)--I simply do not see 'any' evidence they exist in any form or nonform.  But 'natural causes' at least presents me with nature.  It is an undeniable piece of evidence--nature exists.  I do not know all the why's and where-for's, but it exists nonetheless.   You have presented no evidence of god(s) or creator.  Nobody has.  And until then..............................

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 20, 2017, 08:54:35 PM
So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

#6 in Dropbox is clearly fantasy.  My main complaint against Drew.  "Programmers have created artificial universes" ... even more outrageous than AI claims.  Programmers cause different sets of 1s and 0s to form.  That isn't a universe for me.  I tried to engage him on "cellular automata" but ... nada.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 09:31:33 PM
The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes. I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist. If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

Without prejudices, we have no thought to chew on.  Axioms aren't omniscience.  It is a prejudice that the straightest path between two points is a straight line.  That doesn't work on the Earth (a sphere for example).  But Euclid had to start somewhere, and held up non-Euclidean geometry for millennia (because of people uncritically accepting his authority).  Similarly with math models for physical systems.  A smart model maker knows this, and understands the limitations of modeling things.  You can't sail a ship-in-a-bottle.  Euclid only works in plane geometry, and in physics, as we now know with GR ... there are no perfect planes, just warps.

So no, it is rationalizations all the way down.  That is the nature of the beast.  But some rationalizations work better than others, just don't mistake them for a truth, or you will flunk non-Euclidean geometry.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 20, 2017, 10:41:24 PM
I do not detest god(s), creator(s) (which suggests that I accept they exist, but I detest them)--I simply do not see 'any' evidence they exist in any form or nonform.  But 'natural causes' at least presents me with nature.  It is an undeniable piece of evidence--nature exists.  I do not know all the why's and where-for's, but it exists nonetheless.   You have presented no evidence of god(s) or creator.  Nobody has.  And until then..............................

Samuel Johnson refuting Bishop Berkeley ... (kicks stone with foot) .. "I refute him thus".

Theists since Thomas Aquinas, have repeatedly misapplied Aristotle's 4 categories of "cause".  Not everything has an efficient or a final cause ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 20, 2017, 08:54:35 PM
So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

There might be a new trend in developing arguments for the existence of God.  It was first proposed by Randy, and now being employed by Drew.  I don't recall it being used by theists before, although it's possible I wasn't paying close enough attention:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that."

I was immediately drawn in by this initial statement because, although I didn't precisely understand it, it did hold a certain seductive promise that something intellectual was about to happen.  But it's a ruse that draws you in with an interesting promise, and then puts you to sleep with not one, but a multitude of logical fallacies, as if one logical fallacy may not stand up to reason, but two logical fallacies can strengthen the argument by making the "proof" twice as good.  Use three logical fallacies, and you are now approaching a mountain of evidence.  Now reconsider to the original seduction:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that," and you now have "irrefutable" proof. 

What once was "may do exactly that," is now equivocated into, "Absolutely did exactly that!"  You have agreed to the original argument by accepting it as valid.  Several fallacies have then been offered as evidence, and having accepted the original seduction, which should have been invalidated at the start, you must now agree with the final conclusion, and a non-sequitur at that.  Never mind that fallacies only support fallacious conclusions, and a mountain of them only weakens an argument more than strengthens it.  You are now half asleep from an inundation of things that don't make sense, and too tired to address all the points one at a time.

Drew also repeats versions of the, "You don't know, therefore natural causes is as invalid as goddidit."  He could stop right there with a reasonably tentative "gotcha."  But the next thing you know, he's claiming that since both arguments are invalid, his invalid argument is better.

Yay, God!

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 12:02:33 AM
Sure if you hold to faith as defined by this passage. However if you take the letter in context, it was an exhortation to keep the faith in Christian belief even in the light of persecution at the time. I was using the word as defined in English.

I can give you an examples where this is true. Being honest to others and yourself is often very difficult and not always rewarding on the spot. The belief is in the long run it will be and so its the best policy even though the situation at the time may not seem like it. The belief we should treat others as we want to be treated, do we do that because it magically means we'll always be treated as we want to be? No because we have 'faith' doing the right thing if nothing else is it's own reward and will eventually come back to us.

The word "faith", in the English language, has more than one definition:

Definition of faith

plural faiths play  \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfātÍŸhz\

1 a :allegiance to duty or a person :loyalty lost faith in the company's president
b (1) :fidelity to one's promises (2) :sincerity of intentions acted in good faith

2 a (1) :belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) :belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) :complete trust

3 :something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially :a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith.

Source:  Merriam-Webster dictionary

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 20, 2017, 08:54:35 PM
So, you are convinced based on bad, fallacious arguments. At least you have a lot of company with every other theist.
I read your entire Dropbox document with your 'evidence', and lets say, I am not impressed.

Unless of course, I was impressed with constant use of "argument from ignorance" and "argument from personal incredulity". I mean, you did use them in every one of your arguments.

I could take time and break them down point by point, but I not motivated enough. At least not today.

Not to mention, that arguments are not evidence. How would you go about testing to see if if your conjectures in your Dopbox document are actually true?

Let me just say, that I am sure glad that there are 10's of thousands real scientists working on the problems you have trouble understanding, so we might get real answers instead of your, "well I can't figure out how; the universe came into existence, life came into existence, sentience came into existence, via natural explanations, so, therefore god".

.
Seriously people, please read the link. Tell me if I missed anything compelling.

This is Drew's third thread where he peddles his theism.

The first:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11251.0 (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11251.0)

The second:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11330.0 (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=11330.0)

I summed up his efforts in his second thread as follows:

Drew's GODDIDIT Casserole Recipe

2 lbs argument from incredulity
1 lb fine tuning argument/argument from design
12 oz essence of non-sequitur/irrelevancy
9 oz begging the question
6 oz burden of proof shifting (substitute: "Hey, look over there')
2 oz ad hominem (substitute Tu Quoque)
6 short strawmen sticks
1 argument from popularity
Liberal dashes of false equivalence, secret definitions and metaphysical woo woo

Mix well, bake for 3 hours at 350, serves one.

I don't see how a dozen or so (or even infinite!) flawed arguments can add up to one unflawed argument. It's flaws all the way down...

Remember when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was all the rage among creationists?  That died out about two years ago.  I'm not sure what happened to it.  It was based on a universal misunderstanding of the law, probably set up by a creationist who had been bitten by one too many snakes, and the peons went on and on about how it proved God, without actually reading the law, or having it explained by someone halfway knowledgeable, like a physicist or someone other than a snake handler.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 20, 2017, 10:41:24 PM
I do not detest god(s), creator(s) (which suggests that I accept they exist, but I detest them)--I simply do not see 'any' evidence they exist in any form or nonform.  But 'natural causes' at least presents me with nature.  It is an undeniable piece of evidence--nature exists.  I do not know all the why's and where-for's, but it exists nonetheless.   You have presented no evidence of god(s) or creator.  Nobody has.  And until then..............................

Evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief. For instance a corpse is a fact that comports with the belief someone was murdered. Its evidence in favor of that belief. Further facts may continue to comport with that belief or may comport with the belief it was natural causes.

The existence of the universe and sentient beings all by itself without anything else known comports with the belief it was caused intentionally unless you have some a priori reason to exclude it as a possibility. The existence of the universe alone comports well with the belief it was caused by unseen natural forces. The existence of human beings with minds frankly doesn't comport well with the belief it was caused unintentionally. Would anyone predict that mindless forces without plan or intent some how come into existence and then proceed to create something completely foreign to itself life and mind and all the conditions necessary for that to occur and again without wanting to or intending to?

Nature does exist and if the debate we were having is does nature exist? I think you'd be in great shape. Your claim is that nature exists and we observe nature. That isn't the debate we're having, though, the debate is what if anything caused nature to exist and by extension caused the existence of sentient human? Do you believe the nature we observe with its laws of physics was also responsible for the universe coming into existence? Is nature reproducing like a living thing? If so how? When? If not what evidence natural forces caused natural forces to exist? What you might mean by natural isn't nature as we know it but any forces whatever they maybe provided there is no personal agent responsible and whatever happened was unintentional. We define nature then as mindless forces regardless of whether they are the type of mindless forces we observe or not, regardless of whether they exist in time, regardless of whether they are made of atoms and regardless of whether they are confined by the laws of physics. The only requirement being they are  dumb as a rock and didn't plan anything to occur including their own existence. I don't want to put words in your mouth but let me understand your position and what evidence leads you to believe all we observe came about minus any plan or intent for it to do so.

Quote from: SGOS on September 21, 2017, 02:02:55 PMRemember when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was all the rage among creationists?  That died out about two years ago.  I'm not sure what happened to it.

Information theory happened to it.

Take the word "fish".  Here's what evolution does:  fish -> fsh -> fshh -> shh

Random mutation inherently disorders information, distorting its intended meaning.  If we assume that DNA works just like written correspondence (spoiler: it doesn't), then evolution is bunk!

Quote from: SGOS on September 21, 2017, 08:45:25 AM
There might be a new trend in developing arguments for the existence of God.  It was first proposed by Randy, and now being employed by Drew.  I don't recall it being used by theists before, although it's possible I wasn't paying close enough attention:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that."

Except I'm not attempting to prove God I'm offering facts that comport with my belief we owe our existence to a Creator. Its not as if I'm not repeatedly asked why I subscribe to theism. You guys are kind of humorous, you state with near certainty your position is true, but get offended when asked to provide evidence saying you don't make a claim only theists do. Then you ask (as if you're remotely open minded) for evidence and to no one's surprise classify each one as being false or a fallacy as if anything short of producing God right before your eyes would qualify. A circumstantial case is just that a series of facts that comport with a belief. I should make it clear I'm not trying to persuade anyone, I don't care of some atheist in here decides there is something to theism. Does it bother you that I believe we owe our existence to a Creator?   

QuoteI was immediately drawn in by this initial statement because, although I didn't precisely understand it, it did hold a certain seductive promise that something intellectual was about to happen.  But it's a ruse that draws you in with an interesting promise, and then puts you to sleep with not one, but a multitude of logical fallacies, as if one logical fallacy may not stand up to reason, but two logical fallacies can strengthen the argument by making the "proof" twice as good.  Use three logical fallacies, and you are now approaching a mountain of evidence.  Now reconsider to the original seduction:  "One piece of evidence may not be enough to prove a God, but a whole lot of pieces put together may do exactly that," and you now have "irrefutable" proof. 

Attack my ideas and beliefs all you want but at least be honest. I never stated theism is a fact, never stated there was irrefutable evidence. Please show me where or kindly retract. Just curious you are making a claim my arguments are fallacies correct? I want to make sure because atheists tend to deny they claim anything. If so would you do whats always asked of me and provide the evidence the arguments are fallacies?

Drew - There are many creators.  We do possess Aristotle's efficient and final causes.  Why do you need an uber-creator?  I don't need Big Bang theory to know that I can act in reality, and that I have an motive in doing so.  If G-d only has material and formal causes ... aka nature ... then in fact humans are superior in that respect to G-d.  Not as big or powerful, but much more personal.  If G-d is potentiality, and we are actuality ... then how does G-d act?  Thru us.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 21, 2017, 06:50:16 PM
Evidence are merely facts that comport with a belief.

No.  Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.  Belief isn't needed.  I'd suggest belief only muddies the picture.  Drew, this is where you and I part company right at the start.  You seem to think that belief is the natural way of finding facts.  I say that belief is what keeps us from facts.  If one is genuinely curious about something, it is best to not have any beliefs about the subject; to search for facts, test those facts, and then come to a conclusion.  I would even say that belief isn't needed.  Belief is only necessary for theology and religion.  Why?  Because there are no facts to support either religion or theology---all there is is faith and belief.  I have no use for either--and no use for religion.   

Quote from: SGOS on September 21, 2017, 02:02:55 PM
Remember when the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was all the rage among creationists?  That died out about two years ago.  I'm not sure what happened to it.  It was based on a universal misunderstanding of the law, probably set up by a creationist who had been bitten by one too many snakes, and the peons went on and on about how it proved God, without actually reading the law, or having it explained by someone halfway knowledgeable, like a physicist or someone other than a snake handler.

That law only applies to closed systems.  Imagine a perfect cup of hot coffee, with some ice cubes in it.  The cup is perfectly isolated from the outside world.  Over time, the ice cubes melt, and the temperature of the hot coffee gets a little less hot.  I can't see how to apply that to a universe, because I don't know if it is perfectly isolated.  I also don't know how ice coffee proves G-d ;-)

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 21, 2017, 06:51:16 PM
Information theory happened to it.

Take the word "fish".  Here's what evolution does:  fish -> fsh -> fshh -> shh

Random mutation inherently disorders information, distorting its intended meaning.  If we assume that DNA works just like written correspondence (spoiler: it doesn't), then evolution is bunk!

Not true at all.  Entropy is a grab all word, and has many definitions (infinite actually), particularly in information theory.  In those usages, it isn't the same as the entropy of thermodynamics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory) ... and yes, I studied this seriously, just two years ago

There are people who believe that reality is a quantum computer.  Reality isn't information, in fact, only a vanishingly small part of reality is information.  Reality as a quantum computer has never been proven, and has been debunked by a Nobel Prize winner.  This is an extension of the Neo-Pythagoreanism that realty is just mathematics.  Both are wrong.  It was thought 100 years ago that mathematics was just logic ... it isn't.  Pythagoras was a religious cult leader near and dear to his acolytes, the accountants and the statisticians.  Quantum computing hasn't even been demonstrated for sure, even for small situations, because of various technical problems (at least as of 2014).  Like AI, it might just be a cargo cult panacea so common to modern society.  More cold fusion for the ignoranti.

And your explanation of evolution was ... underwhelming.  Cellular biology is quite complicated even for simple eukaryotic cells.  For example, explain in simple terms, how RNA transcription produces proteins, how errors in transcription occur, and the consequences.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 21, 2017, 06:50:16 PM


The existence of the universe and sentient beings all by itself without anything else known comports with the belief it was caused intentionally unless you have some a priori reason to exclude it as a possibility.

In this one sentence you are making huge assumptions.  The universe exists.  We know that.  'Sentient' beings exist.  What do you mean by that?  Do you assume humans alone can think and feel?  I would suggest that many more of the objects on and in the earth can do that.  Don't all animals--all life forms (yet, even scientists cannot fully agree on what 'life' is) and even plant forms feel if not think?  They all seem to react to the environment they are in.  You personify nature using the term 'mindless' as though a mind is needed to create, or that nature has a mind or needs to.  What do you mean by 'mind'?  Can a non sentient system create a sentient one?  We don't know that yet; but it would seem so.  But we are working on it, scientifically.  If you think a 'creator' is behind all of this, then test for it. 

I know that nature exists for I live and function in it--and I can demonstrate that to others using established facts.  A creator is a hypothesis.  Yes, you can say you 'believe' your hypothesis is possible, but there are not a single fact; not a single experiment that you can use to establish a fact that would indicate your hypothesis is possible.  It is a belief; a wishful thought.  The scientific world has millions of 'I don't know's' in it.  They are being tackled a little at a time and our knowledge is growing.  Belief is not needed--it is actually an impediment.  Theism, on the other hand, has not one established fact to show or build on; yet it has few 'I don't know's', for all the answers are supplied by a mysterious god; he did it. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 21, 2017, 07:28:25 PM
No.  Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.

If we are to have meaningful dialog we have to use words as they are defined or we will always be talking past each other.

Evidence.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

I use belief by this definition.

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:

You may not like the definition of assertion either.

noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

I believe in theism. That doesn't mean I know its true, it means I think its true based on the information available in comparison to the belief we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that caused all we observe unintentionally a counter claim atheists never really defend because (ahem) atheists don't make any claims.

QuoteScientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.  Belief isn't needed. 

Mike, you can say otherwise until your blue in the face but atheism is a belief. Its a counter belief to theism. Its not a scientifically established fact, or a fact established in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Prove me wrong show the experimental data that proves mindless forces came into existence or always existed, caused the universe and human beings to exist without any plan or intent to do so and caused all we observe... end this silly debate once and for all.

QuoteI'd suggest belief only muddies the picture.  Drew, this is where you and I part company right at the start.  You seem to think that belief is the natural way of finding facts.  I say that belief is what keeps us from facts.  If one is genuinely curious about something, it is best to not have any beliefs about the subject; to search for facts, test those facts, and then come to a conclusion.  I would even say that belief isn't needed.  Belief is only necessary for theology and religion.  Why?  Because there are no facts to support either religion or theology---all there is is faith and belief.  I have no use for either--and no use for religion.

Mike what you call a conclusion is a belief. Has every conclusion you've come to always turned out to be the truth? Isn't it remotely possible that any conclusion you have arrived at may in fact be false? The truth of a matter is whats really so regardless if anyone believes it or any facts or data support. Belief is what one tentatively holds as true barring further information, facts and data. Blind belief or irrational belief isn't a good thing. As a human being I find having beliefs to be indispensable and very close to be a hypothesis which is critical to scientific advancement. A proposition provides a framework for testing. Somethings are so difficult to understand its a process of trial and error. I think you equate belief with faith. Its true some people have beliefs that are argument and evidence proof. I've met many in here...   

Battle of the definitions.  Laymen use technical philosophy terms like "existence" and "universe".

A universe is an existence with a particular order to it, that is compatible with living conscious creatures.  But all those terms and ordinary language, are just memes of ape men.  What if the ape men are wrong, not just the laymen LARPing as philosophers, but the actual philosophers themselves?  Lots of regulars here have no truck with philosophers ... even while their circular arguments depend on it ;-)

I would contend that "existence", "order", "life", "consciousness" and "creatures" are unexamined assumptions, and therefore one can hypothesize that the "universe" as a human meme, has no correspondence with reality (qualia) whatever that may actually be.  For example "empiricism" and "rationalism" are being assumed, not just atheism.  Drew and Mike are both "raging unexamined assumptions incarnate".  If I were a Buddhist, I could accept that all those things at the start of this paragraph, quite handily.  To a Buddhist, this is all just impersonal mind in a state of sick delusion.  We can't even know if there is more than one mind, because making any claim at all, aside from nihilism, is considered to be proof of continued delusion.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 21, 2017, 11:24:43 PM
If we are to have meaningful dialog we have to use words as they are defined or we will always be talking past each other.

Evidence.


noun
1.
a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason:

I believe in theism. That doesn't mean I know its true, it means I think its true based on the information available in comparison to the belief we owe our existence to mechanistic forces that caused all we observe unintentionally a counter claim atheists never really defend because (ahem) atheists don't make any claims.

Mike, you can say otherwise until your blue in the face but atheism is a belief. Its a counter belief to theism. Its not a scientifically established fact, or a fact established in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Prove me wrong show the experimental data that proves mindless forces came into existence or always existed, caused the universe and human beings to exist without any plan or intent to do so and caused all we observe... end this silly debate once and for all.

Drew, I use the definition for evidence as shown above.  Obviously you chose to use another definition.  We will not be able to agree to the definition to be used. 

I realize you 'believe' in theism.  Which I read as hoping/wishing, for you can produce no evidence, only a positive statement--without support or reason.  We do not know to what we owe our existence nor the existence of the universe.  Maybe 'mechanistic forces, maybe mindless forces, maybe we are just the side effect of some system, or some other situation or cause we cannot, at this time, comprehend.   The scientific world is not trying to prove any one cause, but to determine what the cause of our existence is; not that mindless forces, or mechanistic forces, or any other particular force is the cause. 

Well, Drew, I'm blue in the face right now.  Atheism is NOT (no matter how badly you want to believe so) a belief.  I do not have a belief system.  Nor does atheism require it.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief.  I am a nonbeliever in the truest sense of the word.  I don't believe anything.  I use reason for thinking something or not thinking something.  The scientific world is not trying to prove that mindless forces or non-mindless forces created anything.  The scientific world is trying to find out what forces were the cause of our universe and world.  And you have a misconception about what a theory is.  A theory is establishing a fact by experiment and accepting that established fact as real and a thing--not a belief.  But every theory can be retested by anybody at any time and can be shown to be wrong.  That theory is then rejected.  Nothing is cast in stone.  The scientific world tackles questions one at a time without trying to prove any particular view.  What is proven is then proven--until proven wrong.  If there was one established theory about a cause or god(s), I would accept it.  There is not one.  And never will be--except for those who 'believe'.

Not this tired old debate again, which only ever repeats on the same loop:

Theist - I have evidence
Atheist - Show me the evidence
Theist - *evidence*
Atheist - That's not evidence
Theist - Sure it is.
Atheist - No, it's not.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 20, 2017, 09:31:33 PM
The corollary is I detest the very notion of a Creator therefore natural causes. I have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist. If scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

If you seriously think that your straw man is a legit corollary to my post, no wonder you are convinced by your bad arguments.

I do not detest the notion of a creator god, I am just unconvinced that one (or more) exists. There may be specific gods who's existence I would detest, if true, but not the concept in general. But that is not my reasons for disbelief.

QuoteI have no working theory of how natural forces came into existence, or why they have the properties to cause stars, planets, solar systems to exist or planets that cause life or why the universe has laws of physics that allowed sentient life to exist

You mean to be intellectually honest? To admit that we don't know things? What a horrible concept.

QuoteIf scientists do drill down and find naturalistic explanations for the big ticket items then I'll believe what you currently accept on faith...

You can't post without failing "logic 101", can you? Sorry to inform you, but the burden of proof is all yours. It is not up to us to prove your claim false, it is up to you (if you care about convincing anybody) to prove your claim true. Just to remind you, you are the one that is "multiplying entities without necessity", as is stated by Occam's razor.

So far, have scientists ever drilled down into any phenomena, and NOT found natural explanations? Everything we now understand about the universe, was once thought to have supernatural explanations. Lightning, disease, floods, earthquakes, famine, planetary orbits, etc, etc, were all once thought to be supernaturally controlled. The record has not been kind to you 'superstitionalists'.

I do not believe anything on faith. Please let me know what you think I believe on faith.

All I have to examine is the natural world. If some sort of god(s) exists, I currently have zero justification to believe it.

Please, by all means, present some evidence that your god exists. I am open to accept any claim that is accompanied by demonstrable, falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument and sound/valid logic.

And no, your fallacious arguments presented in your link, are not, in any way, shape or form "evidence".

For arguments sake, lets say I accept your 'logical' arguments as being sound and valid (to reiterate, they are not). Now comes the important step, how do we go about testing whether they are actually true?

Mike,

QuoteWell, Drew, I'm blue in the face right now.  Atheism is NOT (no matter how badly you want to believe so) a belief.  I do not have a belief system.  Nor does atheism require it.  Atheism is simply the lack of belief.  I am a nonbeliever in the truest sense of the word.  I don't believe anything.

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists. But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist. If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

Saying I lack belief is really a non-answer but lets compare to other statements.

Is there enough evidence to conclude for a fact or an opinion that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or do you lack belief in naturalism also? If so do you refer to yourself as an a-naturalist and do you find your self debating naturalists who state the belief (or fact) we owe our existence to naturalistic forces only? Is there evidence you accept as in favor of belief in naturalism or like theism do you deny there are any facts that comport with naturalism?

Is there enough facts and data to conclude Santa Claus (defined as a mystical person who can travel world wide on a sleigh and deliver presents on Christmas Eve) or do you merely lack that belief?

Ditto aliens disbelief or lack of belief
Ghosts
goblins
fairies
Flying spaghetti monster

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 19, 2017, 10:47:59 AM
I don't think he's an idiot, but a very smart, well-practiced manipulator of words that sound profound but are merely misleading.

I suppose that depends on whether or not he actually believes the blithering nonsense he spouts.  If not, then yes, a smart and talented manipulator.  If he does believe it, yeah, he's an idiot.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 12:25:25 PM
Mike,

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists.

Redefined from what and by whom?  I've stated what my working definition is. 

Quote from: Sorginak on September 22, 2017, 09:34:10 AM
Not this tired old debate again, which only ever repeats on the same loop:

Theist - I have evidence
Atheist - Show me the evidence
Theist - *evidence*
Atheist - That's not evidence
Theist - Sure it is.
Atheist - No, it's not.

Bill Clinton - Depends on what the definition of "is" is ;-)

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 12:25:25 PM
Mike,

But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist. If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

Drew, I wonder about your reading comprehension ability.  Or your ability to restate what someone has said.  As clearly as I can I will tell you what I think.  I contend that there are not ANY facts--not one--that supports the existence of god(s) or a creator.  Not a 'few' or 'not enough'--not ANY.  It is not my 'opinion'--it is a fact.  And if I am wrong in that last statement, please point me toward those facts that I am unaware of. 

Of course I deny god(s) exist.  There is no proof it does.  I have proof nature exists--none for god(s).  The second proof is given that god(s) exist, I will instantly become a believer. 

Why have 'qualms' about what theists believe?  It matters not what your private beliefs are.  What matters is that theists insist that I believe as they do and they pass laws that forces their views onto me.   

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 12:25:25 PM
Mike,

Atheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists. But let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist. If that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

You really are a horribly muddled thinker when it comes to logic.

Let me take these one at a time.

QuoteAtheism has been redefined (not surprisingly by atheists) to mean a lack of belief and those people typically claim to be weak atheists.

I don't really care what you want to call my lack of belief in gods. It is the concept that is important, not the label.

QuoteBut let me qualify your position (not your belief or opinion because you don't have those) is that not only is there too little information, facts of data to state God doesn't exist is a fact...your position is there isn't even enough facts or data to state as your opinion God doesn't exist.

Oh please...

The only thing that is necessary to disbelieve existential claims, is for there not to be enough demonstrable, falsifiable evidence, and valid/sound logic to support the claim. It is not up to us to find evidence for the nonexistence for any existential claim.

QuoteIf that is your position how can you have any qualms with theists who do think a Creator exists when you as an so called atheist don't deny God exists and in fact you don't think there is enough facts and evidence to even opine God doesn't exist.

Well, deistic creator god types of beliefs tend to be benign.

But the vast majority of creator god believers, believe in a specific theistic god, with all the dogma and doctrine that goes along with that belief. And those beliefs don't live in a vacuum. Beliefs inform actions, and those actions can and do lead to real world, negative outcomes.

We have billions of people, who have differing god beliefs, that all claim that their version of their god wants them to: kill infidels, start wars, persecute homosexuals, have their religious based pseudoscience taught in public schools, want everyone else to obey their holy book's morality, etc.

And NONE of their beliefs are supported by evidence or logic.

QuoteSaying I lack belief is really a non-answer but lets compare to other statements.

Is there enough evidence to conclude for a fact or an opinion that we owe our existence to naturalistic causes or do you lack belief in naturalism also? If so do you refer to yourself as an a-naturalist and do you find your self debating naturalists who state the belief (or fact) we owe our existence to naturalistic forces only? Is there evidence you accept as in favor of belief in naturalism or like theism do you deny there are any facts that comport with naturalism?

What else do we have to examine besides the natural world?

By all means, present the same level of evidence for the existence of your god, as we have for the natural world. Until the time anyone is able to do that, what should be our warrant to believe that your god exists?

Quote from: Baruch on September 21, 2017, 07:26:41 PM
Drew - There are many creators.  We do possess Aristotle's efficient and final causes.  Why do you need an uber-creator?  I don't need Big Bang theory to know that I can act in reality, and that I have an motive in doing so.  If G-d only has material and formal causes ... aka nature ... then in fact humans are superior in that respect to G-d.  Not as big or powerful, but much more personal.  If G-d is potentiality, and we are actuality ... then how does G-d act?  Thru us.

I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 06:56:09 PM
I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

Well then, admit your demigod-hood then.  You can actually do things.  Rocks cannot.  Materialism is like Rock-Paper-Scissors ... where Rock always wins ;-)

"What else do we have to examine besides the natural world?" ... well you could examine yourself or other people ... we aren't natural, we are artificial.  But if you prefer rocks, go right ahead.  I used to be an avid rock collector.  Once I got over my autism though, I am more human oriented now.  It is insulting to other living organisms to say they are natural ... as if they aren't alive, no more than rocks.  But when your body is recycled ...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 06:56:09 PM
I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

I've always considered theists on atheist forums to be masochists, or self-serving martyrs when they finally earn getting forum banned.  No, I wouldn't personally ban you.  It just seems to me the goal of some theists on atheist forums.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 06:56:09 PM
I'm not opposed to a plurality. But even one contradicts atheism.

Ah, yeah--of course.  If you believe in all of the thousands of gods humans have invented, then 'only' one makes atheism wrong.  HAHAHAHA--that is me with one of the best belly laughs I've had in awhile!  Well, hell, your odds are good----right???!

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 07:20:43 PM
Ah, yeah--of course.  If you believe in all of the thousands of gods humans have invented, then 'only' one makes atheism wrong.  HAHAHAHA--that is me with one of the best belly laughs I've had in awhile!  Well, hell, your odds are good----right???!

Billions of demigods have been invented by humans, the usual way ... they are called babies ;-)

Quote from: Sorginak on September 22, 2017, 07:19:09 PM
I've always considered theists on atheist forums to be masochists, or self-serving martyrs when they finally earn getting forum banned.

Hamlet much?  Must be crowded even when you are the only one in your nut shell.

Quote from: Baruch on September 22, 2017, 07:22:48 PM
Hamlet much?  Must be crowded even when you are the only one in your nut shell.

People keep trying to crack me out of this human shell, but no luck. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 21, 2017, 07:53:28 PM
In this one sentence you are making huge assumptions.  The universe exists.  We know that.  'Sentient' beings exist.  What do you mean by that?  Do you assume humans alone can think and feel?  I would suggest that many more of the objects on and in the earth can do that.  Don't all animals--all life forms (yet, even scientists cannot fully agree on what 'life' is) and even plant forms feel if not think?  They all seem to react to the environment they are in.  You personify nature using the term 'mindless' as though a mind is needed to create, or that nature has a mind or needs to.  What do you mean by 'mind'?  Can a non sentient system create a sentient one?  We don't know that yet; but it would seem so.  But we are working on it, scientifically.  If you think a 'creator' is behind all of this, then test for it.

The only sentient beings I know of are humans but if you want to include others its fine with me. By saying mindless I de-personify nature by not attributing any thinking to it. 

QuoteCan a non sentient system create a sentient one?

That's a damn good question, one we wouldn't have to answer if sentient humans beings didn't exist. Not only do such beings exist, but the conditions to cause such beings obtained as well. A second line of inquiry opens can non-sentient systems create a habit for sentient beings minus plan or intent to do so? I don't know the answer to that one either but barring knowing how certain can I be it was mindless forces? I do know that human beings using intelligence, science and engineering can do amazing things that seem to require planning to accomplish true?

QuoteYes, you can say you 'believe' your hypothesis is possible, but there are not a single fact; not a single experiment that you can use to establish a fact that would indicate your hypothesis is possible.  It is a belief; a wishful thought.

I know the hypothesis is possible. Intelligent beings using planning, engineering and design have caused virtual universes to exist. For all the practical purposes they are the gods of those universes. They used it to demonstrate the necessity of dark matter to our existence...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 07:39:10 PM
The only sentient beings I know of are humans but if you want to include others its fine with me. By saying mindless I de-personify nature by not attributing any thinking to it. 

Really?  What does the word 'sentient' mean to you?

For me, this is what it is: Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively.
All things alive are sentient.  That means my pets, the earth worms in my back yard, the bacteria in my gut; anything alive.  And what complicates that is that there is no universal scientific definition of what life is.  This is as close as I have found:

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:[15][17][18][19][20][21][22]

Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells â€" the basic units of life
Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
These complex processes, called physiological functions, have underlying physical and chemical bases, as well as signaling and control mechanisms that are essential to maintaining life.

So, can a non sentient system create a sentient one?  The scientific community is working on the answer--just don't expect it any time soon.  Virus' are alive--but maybe not.  Can't decide--not yet.  So, what in our world is actually alive and what is actually not alive.  Your view of the world is much too simplistic; there are really no cut-and-dried answers.  There is almost always an array of answers or partial answers.  That seems to really, really bother theists.  I would say that at this point there is some decent reasons to think a non sentient system can create life.  On the other hand, is there any evidence that a non sentient system even exists?  Yes, Drew, goddidit is such a simple answer; one that is wholly satisfying if one does not like to think or reason.  So, feel free to continue in you belief since it seems to make you feel better.  Just don't expect me to join you.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 07:39:10 PM

I know the hypothesis is possible. Intelligent beings using planning, engineering and design have caused virtual universes to exist. For all the practical purposes they are the gods of those universes. They used it to demonstrate the necessity of dark matter to our existence...

If you know that a hypothesis is possible for a god(s) or creator, then state it.  Remember, it has to be testable; otherwise it is simply a random thought or a belief.  So, people who create 'virtual universes' are gods.  Really.  It seems you confuse models with the real thing.  Those virtual universes you so love are models.  No matter how complicated, they are models.   So, people who create things are gods?  Are you the god of your daughter?  I'm not for mine.  If you create a new type of table, are you a god?  I don't think so.  BTW, the dark matter model may or may not be totally, or even partially correct.  But they will continue to tinker with it until it does become more accurate.  The same for the weather models that are used to predict the weather.  They are pretty good right now, but they are getting better.  Why?  Because the results of the models are always checked against reality and corrections to the model assumptions are made--predictions become more and more accurate. 

Drew, you just want to make everything simple and easy to understand.  And goddidit is very easy.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 08:14:08 PM
If you know that a hypothesis is possible for a god(s) or creator, then state it.  Remember, it has to be testable; otherwise it is simply a random thought or a belief.  So, people who create 'virtual universes' are gods.  Really.  It seems you confuse models with the real thing.  Those virtual universes you so love are models.  No matter how complicated, they are models.   So, people who create things are gods?  Are you the god of your daughter?  I'm not for mine.  If you create a new type of table, are you a god?  I don't think so.  BTW, the dark matter model may or may not be totally, or even partially correct.  But they will continue to tinker with it until it does become more accurate.  The same for the weather models that are used to predict the weather.  They are pretty good right now, but they are getting better.  Why?  Because the results of the models are always checked against reality and corrections to the model assumptions are made--predictions become more and more accurate. 

Drew, you just want to make everything simple and easy to understand.  And goddidit is very easy.

Drew is repeating one of his favorite fallacies: B causes C therefore A causes B, i.e., humans create things therefore my sky fairy created humans.

He's really become a broken record that never hit the charts to begin with.

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 01:07:22 PM
Drew, I wonder about your reading comprehension ability.  Or your ability to restate what someone has said.  As clearly as I can I will tell you what I think.  I contend that there are not ANY facts--not one--that supports the existence of god(s) or a creator.  Not a 'few' or 'not enough'--not ANY.  It is not my 'opinion'--it is a fact.  And if I am wrong in that last statement, please point me toward those facts that I am unaware of.

You are aware of several facts I've presented them numerous times you just deny they are evidence based on some self-serving definition that assures at the end of day you can declare no evidence here. I know you're an intelligent man so I assume you know what circumstantial evidence is. Sometimes its all scientists, or criminal investigators have to infer a cause. For instance it was calculated there wasn't enough matter to prevent galaxies from spinning apart. So they inferred without any direct evidence the existence of (you'll love this) unknown invisible matter. You might feel vindicated because when the idea was first presented it was scoffed at by the skeptics. Think about it Zwicky proposed unknown invisible matter was responsible for the extra gravity that is keeping galaxies from flying apart. He might as well have said invisible angels are holding galaxies together. Now, its all but been confirmed that unknown invisible matter exists. By playing God with a virtual galaxies scientists simply increased the gravity until it matched observations and concluded there is 6 times more unknown invisible matter that known visible matter. The reason he inferred the existence is because it explained what was observed.

I infer the existence of an invisible Creator made of unknown substance because (IMHO) it better explains what we observe than the counter claim it was caused by mindless mechanistic forces that didn't intend anything to exist including their own existence. I don't care if you believe that or not. What I do object to is the constant suggestion that I believe this for no reason or fact and therefore I'm just as likely to believe in ghosts, astrology, fairies, invisible pink elephants and of course Santa Claus. If we could observe a chaotic lifeless universe devoid of any laws of physics that would comport exactly with the narrative it was caused unintentionally by mindless forces and I'd have no reason to infer the existence of a Creator. Instead we find ourselves in a universe that is explicable in mathematical terms and formula's can be derived. You can say those facts don't persuade you the slightest and you believe a naturalistic explanation is forthcoming. Don't say I'm not presenting facts that lead me to conclude otherwise. 
   

QuoteOf course I deny god(s) exist.  There is no proof it does.  I have proof nature exists--none for god(s).  The second proof is given that god(s) exist, I will instantly become a believer. 

Again I concede nature exists, not that I ever contested it or that I'm contesting it now. The argument is about what caused nature...natural forces or a Creator.

QuoteWhy have 'qualms' about what theists believe?  It matters not what your private beliefs are.  What matters is that theists insist that I believe as they do and they pass laws that forces their views onto me.

I agree. What law was passed that forced a view on you?

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 22, 2017, 07:20:43 PM
Ah, yeah--of course.  If you believe in all of the thousands of gods humans have invented, then 'only' one makes atheism wrong.  HAHAHAHA--that is me with one of the best belly laughs I've had in awhile!  Well, hell, your odds are good----right???!

It reminds me of the hot dog vendor who wanted to charge a million bucks for a hot dog. When it was pointed out that he probably wouldn't sell very many at that price, he replied that he only needs to sell one.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 22, 2017, 10:33:44 PM
It reminds me of the hot dog vendor who wanted to charge a million bucks for a hot dog. When it was pointed out that he probably wouldn't sell very many at that price, he replied that he only needs to sell one.

I originally heard that about a car salesman, but I agree.  To a theist, getting one convert is worth almost any cost of honor or logic.  Any lie or fear that works is worthwhile.  It gets THEM into heaven in their mind...

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 22, 2017, 11:50:29 AM

You can't post without failing "logic 101", can you? Sorry to inform you, but the burden of proof is all yours. It is not up to us to prove your claim false, it is up to you (if you care about convincing anybody) to prove your claim true. Just to remind you, you are the one that is "multiplying entities without necessity", as is stated by Occam's razor.

While pretending to make no claim you continue to insert claims just the same. For instance you claim I'm 'multiplying entities without necessity.' How do you know a Creator isn't necessary? How do you know you're not subtracting entities below necessity?

QuoteYou mean to be intellectually honest? To admit that we don't know things? What a horrible concept.

So in fact you don't know if a Creator is necessary or unnecessary. Since you make a claim please present the evidence you demand of me. Could a laptop come into existence without a creator? Could natural forces cause a virtual universe to exist or can natural forces only cause a real universe to exist without plan or intent to do so?

QuoteSo far, have scientists ever drilled down into any phenomena, and NOT found natural explanations? Everything we now understand about the universe, was once thought to have supernatural explanations. Lightning, disease, floods, earthquakes, famine, planetary orbits, etc, etc, were all once thought to be supernaturally controlled. The record has not been kind to you 'superstitionalists'.

I beg to differ one of the superstionalists was Isaac Newton who believed the universe was knowable, explicable in mathematical terms, that formulas could be derived and that laws of logic, induction and deduction will apply. He operated on that premise because he believed the universe was intentionally caused by an intelligent agent. Did he fall flat on his face operating on such a nonsensical premise? To the contrary he's considered one of the greatest scientists of our time.

QuoteI do not believe anything on faith. Please let me know what you think I believe on faith.

Do you believe scientists will continue to drill down and find 'naturalistic' answers? At this point they've drilled down to the beginning of the universe and hypothesize the universe came from a singularity, a phenomena in which the laws of physics we are familiar with don't apply. Does natural just mean not God?

QuoteAnd no, your fallacious arguments presented in your link, are not, in any way, shape or form "evidence".

You are making a claim correct? Please provide evidence the arguments are fallacious, as you recall those who make claims have the burden of proof.

Evidence are just facts that comport with a hypothesis. The facts I presented comport with that belief. I know the claim of no evidence is foundational to all atheists but in particular the atheist who claims he only has a lack of belief.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 23, 2017, 01:09:25 PM
While pretending to make no claim you continue to insert claims just the same. For instance you claim I'm 'multiplying entities without necessity.' How do you know a Creator isn't necessary? How do you know you're not subtracting entities below necessity?

Because, so far, what we have found, is that there seem to be a continually growing number of natural explanations for everything we examine. Name one time, that scientists have ever looked into an extant phenomena, where, based on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, a supernatural explanation turned out to be the correct one, or at least likely the correct one.

And, since you are the one claiming that a god is responsible for 'creation', until you can produce demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim, you are the one that is multiplying entities. You just can't seem to understand, that "We don't know YET", is the most intellectually honest answer.

I don't know that a creator is not necessary. But considering the lack of any demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support such a claim, I will continue to be unconvinced that a creator is necessary.

QuoteSo in fact you don't know if a Creator is necessary or unnecessary. Since you make a claim please present the evidence you demand of me.

The only claim I am making is that the evidence to support the claim that a creator god exists, has not met its burden of proof. As long as that state of affairs continues, I will continue to not accept the claim that a god exists.

QuoteCould a laptop come into existence without a creator? Could natural forces cause a virtual universe to exist or can natural forces only cause a real universe to exist without plan or intent to do so?

Seriously?! The 'watchmaker' argument?

Yes, a laptop requires a creator. Actually, it requires 1000's of creators for: the OS, the chassis, the hard drive, the memory, the BIOS, the chipset, etc, etc, etc (so, you are arguing for many creator gods?). But we know that laptops are created objects, because we have decades of evidence built up to prove it. We have: plans, computer scientists that can me interviewed, hundreds of text books explaining how it is done, factories we can visit where all the parts are manufactured, etc, etc, etc.

We also have the same level of evidence for the ability of software engineers to create virtual universes using computers.

Do you have even close to the same level of evidence that a creator god is responsible for the universe? And no, a false analogy between the universe and a laptop is not evidence.

You claim we live in a universe that is entirely created. So, for you everything is a laptop. Why do you pick out one thing, a laptop, that is obviously different from a bush, and use it for your false analogy?

Complexity is not how we detect design. We detect design specifically by contrasting with nature.

You are guilty here, of the fallacy of composition. Just because you can point to specific items within space/time that are designed, does not mean that the same can be said of the universe itself.

QuoteI beg to differ one of the superstionalists was Isaac Newton who believed the universe was knowable, explicable in mathematical terms, that formulas could be derived and that laws of logic, induction and deduction will apply. He operated on that premise because he believed the universe was intentionally caused by an intelligent agent. Did he fall flat on his face operating on such a nonsensical premise? To the contrary he's considered one of the greatest scientists of our time.

His supernatural beliefs may have been his motivation to do his work, but his incredible discoveries were all due to empirical science. By the way, Newton also believed in alchemy. In fact I believe he wrote more about alchemy than he did about gods. You seem to ignore his silly beliefs about alchemy.

QuoteDo you believe scientists will continue to drill down and find 'naturalistic' answers? At this point they've drilled down to the beginning of the universe and hypothesize the universe came from a singularity, a phenomena in which the laws of physics we are familiar with don't apply. Does natural just mean not God?

Yes, I believe that scientists will continue to find naturalistic answers. This is not a faith based belief I have, it is one based on reasonable expectations.

Now, that is not to say that scientists will find answers to every question. Humanity may actually be blocked from finding answers to some questions. Yes, even the origins of the universe may be beyond what we can discover. At the point where we can't find answers, is it more intellectually honest to claim a god is responsible, or answer with "we don't know"?

QuoteYou are making a claim correct? Please provide evidence the arguments are fallacious, as you recall those who make claims have the burden of proof.

I am making the claim that science is the single best method ever discovered to explain the universe. Do I claim this with absolute certainty, no. Yes, I have the burden, and I think it is an easy case to make.

QuoteEvidence are just facts that comport with a hypothesis. The facts I presented comport with that belief. I know the claim of no evidence is foundational to all atheists but in particular the atheist who claims he only has a lack of belief.

No, facts come first, then the hypothesis. You got it exactly backwards. Maybe that's your problem, you have your hypothesis first, then you try to make the facts fit it.

I don't claim there is no evidence. Just drastically insufficient evidence to support the claim you are making.

When did you present facts? Please point me to them.

All I ever remember reading by you is your horribly fallacious arguments. Arguments are not facts.

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 23, 2017, 02:08:47 PM

I am making the claim that science is the single best method ever discovered to explain the universe. Do I claim this with absolute certainty, no. Yes, I have the burden, and I think it is an easy case to make.

No, facts come first, then the hypothesis. You got it exactly backwards. Maybe that's your problem, you have your hypothesis first, then you try to make the facts fit it.

I don't claim there is no evidence. Just drastically insufficient evidence to support the claim you are making.

When did you present facts? Please point me to them.

All I ever remember reading by you is your horribly fallacious arguments. Arguments are not facts.

I think that is what amuses me about "Biblical Scholars".  They have a conclusion in mind and only seek facts to support their desired conclusion.

I recall watching some awful cable show where they decided where Sodom was.  And then they found a nearby cave where and his daughters could have stayed.  And WOW, therefore that meant the nearby village must have been Sodom because,  after all, Lot and his daughter had been nearby.  LOL!  The circular logic can spin one's head around.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 22, 2017, 07:39:10 PM
The only sentient beings I know of are humans but if you want to include others its fine with me. By saying mindless I de-personify nature by not attributing any thinking to it. 

That's a damn good question, one we wouldn't have to answer if sentient humans beings didn't exist. Not only do such beings exist, but the conditions to cause such beings obtained as well. A second line of inquiry opens can non-sentient systems create a habit for sentient beings minus plan or intent to do so? I don't know the answer to that one either but barring knowing how certain can I be it was mindless forces? I do know that human beings using intelligence, science and engineering can do amazing things that seem to require planning to accomplish true?

I know the hypothesis is possible. Intelligent beings using planning, engineering and design have caused virtual universes to exist. For all the practical purposes they are the gods of those universes. They used it to demonstrate the necessity of dark matter to our existence...

Yes, nature is mindless, as defined by materialists.  But materialism is self contradictory anyway ... otherwise the materialists would be mindless, and unable to voice an opinion.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2017, 02:31:12 PM
I think that is what amuses me about "Biblical Scholars".  They have a conclusion in mind and only seek facts to support their desired conclusion.

I recall watching some awful cable show where they decided where Sodom was.  And then they found a nearby cave where and his daughters could have stayed.  And WOW, therefore that meant the nearby village must have been Sodom because,  after all, Lot and his daughter had been nearby.  LOL!  The circular logic can spin one's head around.

True, bad scholars do that.  So do bad scientists.  Incompetence and mendacity isn't limited to theists.

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:21:31 PM
True, bad scholars do that.  So do bad scientists.  Incompetence and mendacity isn't limited to theists.

At least I have the intelligence to not believe a word of anything produced by a bad scientist.  Can theists state the same for all the religious magic imaginatively concocted by their leaders?

Quote from: Sorginak on September 23, 2017, 03:29:44 PM
At least I have the intelligence to not believe a word of anything produced by a bad scientist.  Can theists state the same for all the religious magic imaginatively concocted by their leaders?

Straw man.  I was saying scholars ... aka experts/practitioners of the humanities.  As opposed to the inhumanities.  I follow no religious leaders ... it is an age/maturity thing.  Children and young adults seek guidance, but don't always find good guidance.  Knowing, as a lay person, who is a bad scientist, is admittedly difficult.  Including for the lay folk who post here.  That is inevitable however.  Science enthusiasts were even taken in by the cold fusion scammers, for awhile.  If a technical break thru is reported that pushes all your Star Wars buttons, it is hard not to be gullible.

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:37:37 PM
Straw man.

I live in the city, we don't have those like you country people out there in your fields.

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:19:16 PM
Yes, nature is mindless, as defined by materialists.  But materialism is self contradictory anyway ... otherwise the materialists would be mindless, and unable to voice an opinion.

Please, do post a logical syllogism, with sound premises and valid form, where the conclusion is, "therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience".

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3

Conclusion - Therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience.

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 23, 2017, 03:58:11 PM

Please, do post a logical syllogism, with sound premises and valid form, where the conclusion is, "therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience".

Premise 1
Premise 2
Premise 3

Conclusion - Therefore, materialism can not lead to sentience.

You're on!

Premise 1 ... Pythagoras is like a Greek god (a demigod)!
Premise 2 ... Greek gods are omniscient, believe whatever they say!
Fact 1 ... Pythagoras says that everything is number, starting with #1
Theorem 1 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#1 ... everything is number, starting with #1
Fact 2 ... Pythagoras says that you should get up early and worship the dawn
Fact 3 ... Pythagoras says that you should never eat beans
Theorem 2 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#2 ... get up early and worship the dawn
Theorem 3 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#3 ... never eat beans
Corollary 1 ... since frijoles and refries are made from beans, stop eating frijoles and refries (damn)
Corollary 2 ... since everything is number, reality can be accounted for
Corollary 3 ... from C#2 ... materialism is false ... a number is a concept, it isn't material
Theorem 4 ... since Pythagoras is omniscient, he must also be conscious
Theorem 5 ... since C#3 and T#4 ... materialism can't cause (lead to) sentience (consciousness) because a Greek demigod can't contradict himself
QED

Even if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is.  Unless of course your computer can speak the words you are reading on screen.

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 04:27:57 PM
You're on!

Premise 1 ... Pythagoras is like a Greek god (a demigod)!
Premise 2 ... Greek gods are omniscient, believe whatever they say!
Fact 1 ... Pythagoras says that everything is number, starting with #1
Theorem 1 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#1 ... everything is number, starting with #1
Fact 2 ... Pythagoras says that you should get up early and worship the dawn
Fact 3 ... Pythagoras says that you should never eat beans
Theorem 2 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#2 ... get up early and worship the dawn
Theorem 3 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#3 ... never eat beans
Corollary 1 ... since frijoles and refries are made from beans, stop eating frijoles and refries (damn)
Corollary 2 ... since everything is number, reality can be accounted for
Corollary 3 ... from C#2 ... materialism is false ... a number is a concept, it isn't material
Theorem 4 ... since Pythagoras is omniscient, he must also be conscious
Theorem 5 ... since C#3 and T#4 ... materialism can't cause (lead to) sentience (consciousness) because a Greek demigod can't contradict himself
QED

Even if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is.  Unless of course your computer can speak the words you are reading on screen.

That's pretty good!

QuoteEven if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is

Then, how did you go about determining your claim about sentience not being able to emerge from only natural processes, is true?

First of all ... if you accept Aristotle as axiomatic ...

I accept that there are both natural and artificial processes.  See Aristotle's 4 causes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

I define nature as ... material and formal causes combined.

I define artificial as ... material, formal, efficient and final cause combined.

Clearly some things are natural (aka existent).  And clearly other things are artificial (aka made up).  The made up things have to depend on the existent things, since the first two causes are included in the artificial.  Genesis reflects this ... G-d is a maker, not a creator (ex nihilo).  G-d imposes a new order on something that already exists.  People are like that.  I don't consider the natural to be sentient, only the artificial (either the maker is sentient, or what is made, is a clue that a sentient has been involved).  Unlike Drew (and I understand the last 2400 years of his argument, it started with Socrates) I don't over simplify, I don't say ... natural or artificial but not both.  That tis a false dichotomy.  This is why one has to be careful, in cases of complex entities, to be black/white .. rather than shades of grey.

I notice that this order (logic and premises) is something I am imposing on chaos, as a demigod, like in Genesis.  I am creating a self fulfilling fact on the ground, and will be confused as to agency if I forget I brought it about by my action (see Schroedinger's Cat).  Personally I must aside that ... I don't agree with Pythagoras or Thales, in the hard sciences I prefer Archimedes.  So even if we accept my agency in framing the question, and the answer to the question ... by attribute, the natural can't produce the artificial, it is lacking in those necessary attributes (efficient and final causes).  I don't have to make the leap however, that this allows us to deduce that the natural is the product of the artificial.  G-d didn't do that in Genesis, and never have I either.

And I don't agree with Aristotle on everything, just Archimedes!  Anyone who can jump out of his bath and run around in public naked, shouting "I have found it" ... is my kind of guy.

Quote from: Simon Moon on September 23, 2017, 02:08:47 PM
Because, so far, what we have found, is that there seem to be a continually growing number of natural explanations for everything we examine. Name one time, that scientists have ever looked into an extant phenomena, where, based on demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, a supernatural explanation turned out to be the correct one, or at least likely the correct one.

None. Because anything that can be observed, no matter how bizarre, strange or whether it defies the laws of physics is going to be considered natural. The label supernatural is a boogeyman atheists use to obfuscate. Moreover the premise is demonstrably wrong. The premise is that if we continue to explain things by an appeal to the laws of physics this is evidence (a fact that comports with a belief) the cause was natural as well. All is well except it doesn't work. We can examine a laptop from top to bottom inside and out and every inch of it can be explained 'naturalistically'. All its functions and capabilities can be explained without having to invoke a creator. Also we look top and bottom inside and out and we don't find a Creator either. We now have two 'proofs' that laptops are created unintentionally by happenstance.

QuoteAnd, since you are the one claiming that a god is responsible for 'creation', until you can produce demonstrable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim, you are the one that is multiplying entities. You just can't seem to understand, that "We don't know YET", is the most intellectually honest answer.

That's not the answer you gave, you said I'm multiplying entities beyond necessity a knowledge claim you defended with a faulty premise.  I'm not attempting to establish theism as a scientific theory. Unlike some who responded in the poll they are 99.9999% certain no Creator was involved I'm not nearly so certain theism is true, its what I opine is true. What I take umbrage with is the notion this is just some whimsical belief I have for no discernible reason to subscribe to. I don't deny there is evidence in favor of naturalism. Are you an a-naturalist as well? If you admit we don't know yet is the intellectually honest answer then you should challenge the naturalists on this board who claim with certainty we owe our existence to naturalistic forces? If we don't know as you say aren't they just as disingenuous?

QuoteThe only claim I am making is that the evidence to support the claim that a creator god exists, has not met its burden of proof. As long as that state of affairs continues, I will continue to not accept the claim that a god exists.

I don't give a rat's ass what you conclude.

QuoteComplexity is not how we detect design. We detect design specifically by contrasting with nature.

Does the scientific technique of inquiry and investigation differ depending on whether science is examining something believed to have been caused naturally by mindless forces minus any plan and intent and something known to be created by design like code for instance or a new invention? The answer is no scientists would use the same method of observation and experimentation to explain a phenomena whether it was known to be intentionally created or not. By the way its not as if humans are capable of creating things from scratch good old mother nature has been incredibly benevolent to us human beings by producing seemingly inviolable laws of nature that allow us to have a frame work to figure out how things work. She also created the laws of physics that caused stars, galaxies, planets to exist with the conditions to cause life to exist.

"Because anything that can be observed, no matter how bizarre, strange or whether it defies the laws of physics is going to be considered natural."

Not by me.  I consider that to be metaphysical malpractice.  Human beings (any beings) are strictly artificial, not natural.

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:19:16 PM
Yes, nature is mindless, as defined by materialists.  But materialism is self contradictory anyway ... otherwise the materialists would be mindless, and unable to voice an opinion.

This is a huge mistake. When a materialist says 'nature is mindless', he means the forces of nature including the laws of physics are mindless. Any materialist who says that a human being is mindless has got to be loony. I think I am a materialist (I haven't really quite decided but I think I am although I'm still go to church with my parents and I'm an altar boy). But I don't accept that everything in nature is mindless. So, there is no contradiction. I can't speak for the loony materialists who say that everything in nature is mindless, if indeed there is such a materialist.

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 04:27:57 PM
You're on!

Premise 1 ... Pythagoras is like a Greek god (a demigod)!
Premise 2 ... Greek gods are omniscient, believe whatever they say!
Fact 1 ... Pythagoras says that everything is number, starting with #1
Theorem 1 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#1 ... everything is number, starting with #1
Fact 2 ... Pythagoras says that you should get up early and worship the dawn
Fact 3 ... Pythagoras says that you should never eat beans
Theorem 2 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#2 ... get up early and worship the dawn
Theorem 3 ... therefore from P#1, P#2 and F#3 ... never eat beans
Corollary 1 ... since frijoles and refries are made from beans, stop eating frijoles and refries (damn)
Corollary 2 ... since everything is number, reality can be accounted for
Corollary 3 ... from C#2 ... materialism is false ... a number is a concept, it isn't material
Theorem 4 ... since Pythagoras is omniscient, he must also be conscious
Theorem 5 ... since C#3 and T#4 ... materialism can't cause (lead to) sentience (consciousness) because a Greek demigod can't contradict himself
QED

Even if you have proper logical form (and in natural language this is impossible), people never agree as to what a sound premise is.  Unless of course your computer can speak the words you are reading on screen.

Forgive me for saying this but this is a good illustration of why I say philosophy is a silly game and depending on what your premise is you can construct a framework that shows that fairies exist together with the pink polka-dotted unicorns. Premise 1 and Premise 2 are nonsensical. Ergo, the entire system right down to the conclusion fails.

I have a problem with answering the question in the poll. 'God as a creator of the universe' is too broad. If God is described as a personal God with consciousness, the likelihood of his existence goes down. If God has attributes which include loving kindness and omnipotence, his likelihood of existing plummets to ZERO.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 09:57:18 AM
Forgive me for saying this but this is a good illustration of why I say philosophy is a silly game and depending on what your premise is you can construct a framework that shows that fairies exist together with the pink polka-dotted unicorns. Premise 1 and Premise 2 are nonsensical. Ergo, the entire system right down to the conclusion fails.

I think the best definition of philosophy I ever heard was courtesy Alexei Sayle: "Philosophy is having arguments with dead people."  I'll engage in it sometimes, but when philosophers try to make grand pronouncements about How Things Are (or the rough equivalent, How Things Must Be), that's when I tune out.  Thinking about things may help you come to some sort of conclusions about how things are, but thinking cannot replace real, tangible observations.

I don't think "nature" is mindless, since it produced us, and we are minds. We are natures way of learning about nature.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 27, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
I don't think "nature" is mindless, since it produced us, and we are minds. We are natures way of learning about nature.

Well, certainly the natural processes themselves are mindless.  Evolution can't peer ahead and try to out-guess environment.  And even as a natural product of our environment, I do not accept the proposition that we're nature's way of learning about itself.  That's dangerously close to the Gaia hypothesis in my book.  I'll grant that terrestrial ecology is a profoundly complex and interconnected thing, but I don't think it's actually active in perpetuating itself.  Terrestrial ecology finds a balance; it does not actively seek one.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 27, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
I don't think "nature" is mindless, since it produced us, and we are minds. We are natures way of learning about nature.

Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).  This is what Wolfram thinks too (reality is cellular automata) ... but he is just a Pythagorean.  Few are as materialist as Descartes, science has moved on to ... physicalism and reductionism.

Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 12:52:50 PM
Well, certainly the natural processes themselves are mindless.  Evolution can't peer ahead and try to out-guess environment.  And even as a natural product of our environment, I do not accept the proposition that we're nature's way of learning about itself.  That's dangerously close to the Gaia hypothesis in my book.  I'll grant that terrestrial ecology is a profoundly complex and interconnected thing, but I don't think it's actually active in perpetuating itself.  Terrestrial ecology finds a balance; it does not actively seek one.

And so you are more reductionist than Unbeliever ... but I agree with your wariness about anthropomorphism.  I choose anthropomorphism as axiomatic, because I am a human, I am not a random cloud of atoms (that is an abstraction, and and oversimplification).  People equate abstractions with reality, but abstractions are in fact just tools, and only exist because of humans, not the other way around.  Abstract ideas produce nothing (or you are Plato).

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).

Not 'magically arise'.  Humans create order out of the chaos of the universe and nature because that helps us to make something of the chaos we find ourselves in.  I have created an order of what I am able to perceive as the universe around me.  Whether or not it comports with what you consider order to be is not important to me.  I realize that time is considered to be linear and the same everywhere on this world.  But for me, that's not the case.  Every day I find time zips by at times and drags at others.  Time is not the same all the time for me.  When some factor in my life is demonstrated to be seen in error by me, I will then change my mind about that factor.  For me, my order is my order and magic has nothing to do with it; nor does anything spiritual, unnatural, supernatural, have anything to do with it. 

Quote from: Mike Cl on September 27, 2017, 01:25:00 PM
Not 'magically arise'.  Humans create order out of the chaos of the universe and nature because that helps us to make something of the chaos we find ourselves in.  I have created an order of what I am able to perceive as the universe around me.  Whether or not it comports with what you consider order to be is not important to me.  I realize that time is considered to be linear and the same everywhere on this world.  But for me, that's not the case.  Every day I find time zips by at times and drags at others.  Time is not the same all the time for me.  When some factor in my life is demonstrated to be seen in error by me, I will then change my mind about that factor.  For me, my order is my order and magic has nothing to do with it; nor does anything spiritual, unnatural, supernatural, have anything to do with it.

Yes, but you are answering for trdsf.  Yes, we create order, just like G-d in Genesis.  We are demigods.  But epiphenomenalism doesn't claim that ... it claims that random atoms do that, not people.  Wrong level of analysis, but then materialism almost always is.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:34:55 PM
Yes, but you are answering for trdsf.  Yes, we create order, just like G-d in Genesis.  We are demigods.  But epiphenomenalism doesn't claim that ... it claims that random atoms do that, not people.  Wrong level of analysis, but then materialism almost always is.

No, I was telling you that magic has nothing to do with it.  There is no real magic; the stage magic is trickery (but still astounding when done by the good magicians).  Those labels you like to throw out mean little to me.  I have not looked at all of the schools of thought for all philosophy and then picked one and rejected everything else.  If what I say and do suggests a certain school of philosophy, then that is accidental not purposefully done on my part.  I chose the way I look at the universe based on what works for me--and not any philosopher.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).  This is what Wolfram thinks too (reality is cellular automata) ... but he is just a Pythagorean.  Few are as materialist as Descartes, science has moved on to ... physicalism and reductionism.

Dawkins wrote that if you hear someone talking about randomness, he probably doesn't understand evolution. Natural selection is far from random. Many people find it hard to accept that our mind (which is nothing more than the process of our physical brain) evolved to its present state from a single-cell organism.  Jerry Coyne's book, 'Why Evolution is True' is really good. In CF, I recommended Francis Collins, 'The Language of God' to the fundies. You can't read it and not see the truth of evolution. Our consciousness can easily come about from a non-conscious distant ancestor. Francis Collins is a Christian and so CF folks would read his book but they don't know that the first half of the book is all about why evolution is absolutely true from a geneticist's standpoint. The second half of the book is the dumbest I've ever read. He explains why he believes in God and I'm amazed that Francis Collins can suddenly turn from a brilliant geneticist to a moron just because he goes weak in the knees at the mention of blooming God. Whenever I see brilliant people reduced to imbeciles because they want to believe in pesky God, I get upset with this non-existent pest.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 01:15:18 PM
Except you are an epiphenomenalist ... that order, life and consciousness magically arise from randomness plus a few QM rules (aka complexity).  This is what Wolfram thinks too (reality is cellular automata) ... but he is just a Pythagorean.  Few are as materialist as Descartes, science has moved on to ... physicalism and reductionism.

There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

And more to the point, it is an open area of research and an unanswered question in science and I cheerily admit that I don't know with any certainty.

Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 03:05:34 PM
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

An intriguing idea.  But calling it magic is so much easier.

Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 03:05:34 PM
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

And more to the point, it is an open area of research and an unanswered question in science and I cheerily admit that I don't know with any certainty.

Beehives and anthills aren't natural, they are artificial.  Social insects are very sophisticated, unlike rocks.  And yes, some things are processes ... not things ... but then that isn't materialism, that is process theology ;-)  Processes are a human description of a complex situation, they don't exist aside from our cogitation.  The ants and bees don't know that we are trying to analyze them, they have their own life/consciousness individually and in groups ... same as humans.  Now you can put a pile of sand into a beach, but (per no spontaneous generation) there won't be crabs that develop out of that sand (there might be in a billion years but that isn't what is meant by spontanous generation).  The crabs come from elsewhere will colonize that sand.

Materialists and confused naturalists would say ... the artificial doesn't exist, and free will doesn't exist.  They make perfect communists, they are only fit to live in a feminist hive mind ;-(

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 27, 2017, 03:17:43 PM
An intriguing idea.  But calling it magic is so much easier.

Magic is the name humans give to technology we don't understand.  We don't understand social insects ... though we know about them.  To understand them, we would have to bee them ;-)  Humans can only understand humans.  Like can understand like, but not unlike.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 10:03:05 AM
I have a problem with answering the question in the poll. 'God as a creator of the universe' is too broad. If God is described as a personal God with consciousness, the likelihood of his existence goes down. If God has attributes which include loving kindness and omnipotence, his likelihood of existing plummets to ZERO.

Yet many responded with 99.9999% certainty no Creator of the universe exists. The argument theism vs atheism begins with whether we owe our existence to naturalistic causes minus any intent or plan to cause the universe and life or whether we owe our existence to a transcendent agent generically referred to as God.  If that isn't true then its a moot point about the nature of God. If it is true then you can decide which if any of the Gods is the God who created the universe.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 07:01:53 PM
  Humans can only understand humans.

And even then not very well considering our inside knowledge.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
Francis Collins is a Christian and so CF folks would read his book but they don't know that the first half of the book is all about why evolution is absolutely true from a geneticist's standpoint. The second half of the book is the dumbest I've ever read. He explains why he believes in God and I'm amazed that Francis Collins can suddenly turn from a brilliant geneticist to a moron just because he goes weak in the knees at the mention of blooming God. Whenever I see brilliant people reduced to imbeciles because they want to believe in pesky God, I get upset with this non-existent pest.

Why do you think that is that an otherwise brilliant person doesn't subscribe to your belief or are you stating its a fact God doesn't exist no Creator was involved in causing the universe and life? I'm going to be terribly disappointed if you reach for your weak atheism towel and claim you only lack belief in the existence of God. So state the facts make your case that lead you to conclude we owe our existence to mindless forces that never intended anything to exist and only imbeciles believe otherwise. 

Quote from: trdsf on September 27, 2017, 03:05:34 PM
There's nothing magical about it.  I lean to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the physical and chemical structure of the brain, in an analogous manner to the way structure arises in the natural operation of a beehive or ant hill.  They are not dependent on specific bees or ants, but they are highly organized structures.  Consciousness isn't the brain, consciousness is what the brain does.  Like a fire, it's a process, not a thing.

And more to the point, it is an open area of research and an unanswered question in science and I cheerily admit that I don't know with any certainty.

trdsf

Are humans capable of independent volitional thought or is all thought just a regurgitation of experience and memories and its just an illusion we think independently?

We know that sentience can be generated and sustained by organic brains, but we don't know that sentience can be generated and sustained by anything other than organic brains. If the universe had a sentient Creator, then sentience can be generated and sustained by something other than organic brains (assuming the Creator doesn't have an organic brain), but we have no knowledge that that is the case. If it turns out to be the case, then the scientific method is the only means at our disposal for confirming it. It won't be confirmed by people having emotional experiences, or using faulty logic to "prove" it.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 07:00:11 PM
Beehives and anthills aren't natural, they are artificial.  Social insects are very sophisticated, unlike rocks.  And yes, some things are processes ... not things ... but then that isn't materialism, that is process theology ;-)  Processes are a human description of a complex situation, they don't exist aside from our cogitation.  The ants and bees don't know that we are trying to analyze them, they have their own life/consciousness individually and in groups ... same as humans.  Now you can put a pile of sand into a beach, but (per no spontaneous generation) there won't be crabs that develop out of that sand (there might be in a billion years but that isn't what is meant by spontanous generation).  The crabs come from elsewhere will colonize that sand.

Materialists and confused naturalists would say ... the artificial doesn't exist, and free will doesn't exist.  They make perfect communists, they are only fit to live in a feminist hive mind ;-(

I have always known that coming up with wonderful labels is the greatest gift the church has. You seem to use the language of the church but you pervert it. You call it process theology but you are wrong. Process theology says that processes are an essential attribute of God. That is not what trdsf subscribes to so you are wrong to label his position as process theology.

I am a good observer. I have always been intrigued by how the religious mind works. I believe that however intelligent a person is, the moment he goes on his religious mode, he becomes a feeble-minded as a baby. But the church is not what it is today for nothing. It has developed a lot of mechanisms and trickery to save the religious person from logic and truth. Your method appears to me (so far) to be to give labels to everyone. You called me Plato or some ancient Zeus-believing old fool. And you now apply 'process theology' which means a different thing to someone who merely says that the mind is the process of the brain. Your labelling is wrong by any standard and if I didn't call you out on this, others reading this thread might be misled into believing that 'Oh dear! Saying that the mind is a process of the brain is a part of process THEOLOGY!!!'   And the poor brilliant atheist might be hesitant to say that in the future. But he should say it because it's the truth. The mind, consciousness and thoughts are all processes of the PHYSICAL brain and that is NOT process theology. Process theology relates to that imaginary being and trdsf and other respectable atheists have no part of it.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 07:01:53 PM
Magic is the name humans give to technology we don't understand.  We don't understand social insects ... though we know about them.  To understand them, we would have to bee them ;-)  Humans can only understand humans.  Like can understand like, but not unlike.

There is nothing special in the word 'understand'. Nothing mystical at all. Of course we can understand insects. We probably understand them better than they do themselves. You don't have to be something to understand it. Whether it's insects or even machinery, our understanding of something is not dependent on our becoming that something. Whatever gave you such a silly idea?

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 27, 2017, 07:23:34 PM
Yet many responded with 99.9999% certainty no Creator of the universe exists. The argument theism vs atheism begins with whether we owe our existence to naturalistic causes minus any intent or plan to cause the universe and life or whether we owe our existence to a transcendent agent generically referred to as God.  If that isn't true then its a moot point about the nature of God. If it is true then you can decide which if any of the Gods is the God who created the universe.

It's not as simple as that. Of course the properties of God is essential before we can decide if it exists. Supposing your definition of God is something that is not personal and has no consciousness, I am prepared to believe in a God. A hitherto unknown force would also qualify as "God" with such a definition. Hence, the attributes of God are essential before someone can decide if God exists or not. Depending on the definition, God can be something as impersonal as a mere force. But the moment you imbue it with consciousness, volition, etc, God enters the realm of nonsense and I dispute its existence.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 27, 2017, 07:35:02 PM
Why do you think that is that an otherwise brilliant person doesn't subscribe to your belief or are you stating its a fact God doesn't exist no Creator was involved in causing the universe and life? I'm going to be terribly disappointed if you reach for your weak atheism towel and claim you only lack belief in the existence of God. So state the facts make your case that lead you to conclude we owe our existence to mindless forces that never intended anything to exist and only imbeciles believe otherwise.

Your disappointment doesn't bother me in the least. I am disappointed with intelligent people believing in a hocus-pocus god but that doesn't mean anything. These people don't have to please me just as I don't have to please you.

As I have said, depending on your definition of God, I may or may not accept its existence. If you define God to include an impersonal force, I accept the likelihood of its existence because a force is nothing new or fanciful. But if your God is a supernatural being with consciousness, I don't accept its existence because you are conjuring up a new entity without reason or evidence. I'm assuming you have neither reason nor evidence because I have been asking for that for a long time and nobody however religious he may be can possibly come up with the smallest shred of evidence.

You are employing another trickery of the church. Asking me to state my case against God is one famous trickery that the church uses and William Lane Craig (the man who's better off as a mean used car salesman) usually does in his debate. Let me spell it out to you so you don't repeat this egregious blunder.

It's NEVER for the atheist to state his case against any imaginary being whether it's God, Narnia, the poltergeist, fairies, pixies, leprechauns or the invisible teacup that circles planet Mars. It's for the person who asserts the existence of these objects to state their case. I don't have to say it but I bet it's something you won't do.  I correct myself: it's something you CAN'T do. In CF, all the adults tell me they 'won't' state their case for God because I'm too young to understand. Ho Ho Ho!!! Like I believed them. The imbeciles in CF say a lot of funny things. Thank God I'm now in a forum run by sane people!!!  As I always tell my vicar, 'Thank God God doesn't exist or he'd be the most wicked animal alive'.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 27, 2017, 10:47:48 PM
We know that sentience can be generated and sustained by organic brains, but we don't know that sentience can be generated and sustained by anything other than organic brains. If the universe had a sentient Creator, then sentience can be generated and sustained by something other than organic brains (assuming the Creator doesn't have an organic brain), but we have no knowledge that that is the case. If it turns out to be the case, then the scientific method is the only means at our disposal for confirming it. It won't be confirmed by people having emotional experiences, or using faulty logic to "prove" it.

That only works if G-d is some superior alien creature.  You had it right in another post ... human beings are, as far as we know, the principle way in which nature aka G-d manifests consciousness.  But not exclusively so.  I don't think rocks are conscious.  And reductionism can provide no explanation, just description of organic molecules being life instead of other elemental combinations.  Yet all our life forms here, are not completely dependent on carbon, but also on sulfur and phosphorus and other elements.

Don't worry ... if we met a superior alien creature, they would most certainly conquer us and use us as an exotic food source.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 27, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
trdsf

Are humans capable of independent volitional thought or is all thought just a regurgitation of experience and memories and its just an illusion we think independently?

I attended a talk by Jerry Coyne (i got him to autograph his wonderful book) and during the Q&A, he mentioned that anyone with the smallest intelligence must know that we do not have free will. I looked at my dad with horror. MENSA tested me and said that I had an IQ beyond the charts which means my IQ exceeds the MENSA maximum of 160 (which made me hope that mine was 200, like Einstein's, but then it's probably much less because I can't understand some physics books that I've read while Einstein could write physics books blindfolded) and I was wondering if there might have been a mistake in the test because I really thought I had free will. Coyne says most people think we have free will because if feels like we have free will but we are really determined by our genes and our upbringing and our genes will determine our reaction to the environment. I haven't thought much about it but I'd like to think that I have free will and I always voluntarily go with the TRUTH because I am...

St Truth

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 10:56:43 PM
It's not as simple as that. Of course the properties of God is essential before we can decide if it exists. Supposing your definition of God is something that is not personal and has no consciousness, I am prepared to believe in a God. A hitherto unknown force would also qualify as "God" with such a definition. Hence, the attributes of God are essential before someone can decide if God exists or not. Depending on the definition, God can be something as impersonal as a mere force. But the moment you imbue it with consciousness, volition, etc, God enters the realm of nonsense and I dispute its existence.

Properties of divinity ... is something oft debated by post Greek theologians, particularly 1000 years ago.  There is "via positiva" or what G-d is ... and "via negative" or what G-d is not.  Back then most theologians were satisfied with negative theology.  They were neo-Platonists.  Along came the neo-Aristotelians, who attempted to restore positive theology into favor.  Initially such men, like St Aquinas, were condemned ... but by hook or crook, St Aquinas won over the Catholic church.  Maimonides won over the rabbinic Jewish community (not all Jews were or are rabbinic).  The neo-Aristotelians however, in Islam, were defeated by the older neo-Platonists ... and this retarded their development, to the benefit of Europe.  It was the books of the Arab and Jewish philosophers in Arabic, who had kept alive the Greco-Roman traditions, that made intellectualism possible in Europe again starting in Spain and Italy ... translated into Latin by Jewish scholars.

If you wanted to know positive theology, as it existed when the Anglican church broke off from the Roman church ... you would need to study St Aquinas.  He and his contemporaries were strong in logic, in spite of what atheists falsely claim about reason.  There have always been intellectual disbelievers ... and they have always been a minority.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 11:14:12 PM
I attended a talk by Jerry Coyne (i got him to autograph his wonderful book) and during the Q&A, he mentioned that anyone with the smallest intelligence must know that we do not have free will. I looked at my dad with horror. MENSA tested me and said that I had an IQ beyond the charts which means my IQ exceeds the MENSA maximum of 160 (which made me hope that mine was 200, like Einstein's, but then it's probably much less because I can't understand some physics books that I've read while Einstein could write physics books blindfolded) and I was wondering if there might have been a mistake in the test because I really thought I had free will. Coyne says most people think we have free will because if feels like we have free will but we are really determined by our genes and our upbringing and our genes will determine our reaction to the environment. I haven't thought much about it but I'd like to think that I have free will and I always voluntarily go with the TRUTH because I am...

St Truth

So you do intellectualize ... you do follow the most recent braniac you have met personally ... and in this case he is an idiot, like all other determinists (including theological ones).  Well I hope as you mature, you will develop a more discriminating taste in the philosophy you supposedly despise.  Determinism has been bankrupt for over 100 years now in physics.  Idiot savants are a dime a dozen, and not even worth that much.  Again, being a whole human being, is much better than a braggart IQ.  I was measured at genius level when I was 6, and I can tell you as a genius, that it is BS.

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 11:09:50 PM
That only works if G-d is some superior alien creature.  You had it right in another post ... human beings are, as far as we know, the principle way in which nature aka G-d manifests consciousness.  But not exclusively so.  I don't think rocks are conscious.  And reductionism can provide no explanation, just description of organic molecules being life instead of other elemental combinations.  Yet all our life forms here, are not completely dependent on carbon, but also on sulfur and phosphorus and other elements.

Don't worry ... if we met a superior alien creature, they would most certainly conquer us and use us as an exotic food source.

'reductionism can provide no explanation' - labels again. I encourage readers to ignore such labelling because there is no truth in it. But if you read it too  many times, the less guarded among us will be lulled into believing that only God has the answers. Rubbish! Baruch says he doesn't know about God - he just 'knows' God exists. If you can't even define God (whether you spell it in full or delete the vowel to make it seem like a dirty word makes no difference), you have no answer. Don't listen to his labelling when he says this or that -ism has no answer as if God has an answer. Repel it in your head and call every bit of nonsense by its real name - NONSENSE. Studies have shown that if you are forced to listen to nonsense for a long time, you will believe in it. That's what the church does with the liturgy - it's a form of brainwashing. Always identify the trickery of religion and counter it in your head even if you don't wish to reply in a post.

But I'm different. I will counter errors and untruths because I seek only the truth and I spread the truth far and wide for I am...

St Truth

And your egomania ... needs diagnosis.  Hope you get help.  I now realize I am not the person for that job.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 27, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
trdsf

Are humans capable of independent volitional thought or is all thought just a regurgitation of experience and memories and its just an illusion we think independently?

Nazis, commies and other tyrants ... always like to claim that we have no free will.  One ... that they can't help but enslave us.  And two, they can't help but be criminals.  If you meet a determinist, run the other way.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 10:53:47 PM
There is nothing special in the word 'understand'. Nothing mystical at all. Of course we can understand insects. We probably understand them better than they do themselves. You don't have to be something to understand it. Whether it's insects or even machinery, our understanding of something is not dependent on our becoming that something. Whatever gave you such a silly idea?

For an Englishman, you display a shocking disdain for proper English.  Consult your OED.  Or are you just an advocate of your own version of Newspeak?

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 11:19:13 PM
So you do intellectualize ... you do follow the most recent braniac you have met personally ... and in this case he is an idiot, like all other determinists (including theological ones).  Well I hope as you mature, you will develop a more discriminating taste in the philosophy you supposedly despise.  Determinism has been bankrupt for over 100 years now in physics.  Idiot savants are a dime a dozen, and not even worth that much.  Again, being a whole human being, is much better than a braggart IQ.  I was measured at genius level when I was 6, and I can tell you as a genius, that it is BS.

Labels mean nothing to me. If you have anything of substance, you will spell it out clearly so I can refute what you say.

If you follow MENSA's ratings, geniuses are no big deal. You only need an IQ of about 140 to be a genius. Most people are geniuses. But Ho Ho Ho!!! I'm beyond the MENSA charts. There's actually another test I can take to determine how much above 160 my IQ is but I haven't done it yet. I'd like to think I'm like Einstein even though I'm not confident I'll be anywhere near that since I couldn't understand some physics books I read. It will be such a letdown if my IQ is found to be precisely 161. Not knowing what it really is might be better.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 11:28:00 PM
Labels mean nothing to me. If you have anything of substance, you will spell it out clearly so I can refute what you say.

If you follow MENSA's ratings, geniuses are no big deal. You only need an IQ of about 140 to be a genius. Most people are geniuses. But Ho Ho Ho!!! I'm beyond the MENSA charts. There's actually another test I can take to determine how much above 160 my IQ is but I haven't done it yet. I'd like to think I'm like Einstein even though I'm not confident I'll be anywhere near that since I couldn't understand some physics books I read. It will be such a letdown if my IQ is found to be precisely 161. Not knowing what it really is might be better.

Like MikeCL .. you are Humpty-Dumpty ... a word means exactly what you (egomania) says it means, no more, no less.  When you become Archbishop of Canterbury, maybe I would be willing to listen to your ravings.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 10:56:43 PM
It's not as simple as that. Of course the properties of God is essential before we can decide if it exists. Supposing your definition of God is something that is not personal and has no consciousness, I am prepared to believe in a God. A hitherto unknown force would also qualify as "God" with such a definition. Hence, the attributes of God are essential before someone can decide if God exists or not. Depending on the definition, God can be something as impersonal as a mere force. But the moment you imbue it with consciousness, volition, etc, God enters the realm of nonsense and I dispute its existence.

Welcome to the board St Truth,

Does consciousness, volition, etc exist in humans? If so we can establish that consciousness, volition, etc exist. If you agree how can you rule that out as a potential cause? If your belief is mindless forces unintentionally created consciousness and volition in humans how can you rule out such forces did so before humans or the universe? Subsequently those beings caused this universe. If you dispute this possibility then you dispute the basis of our existence you subscribe to.

I'll ask you a question no one here seems to want to answer. Could natural forces like the one's alleged to have caused our universe to exist cause a virtual universe to exist like the ones scientists have created or are there phenomena which only could be caused by intelligent means?

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 11:27:39 PM
For an Englishman, you display a shocking disdain for proper English.  Consult your OED.  Or are you just an advocate of your own version of Newspeak?

I know my language better than you. 'Understand' does not mean 'empathise' which is probably what you are thinking of. Yes, I'm familiar with the OED definition of 'understand' and I'm right.

One of the definitions apply:

'Be knowledgeably aware of the character or nature of.'

A good entomologist is knowledgeably aware of the character or nature of insects.

Ho Ho Ho!!! I'm right and you're wrong. For I am none other than...

St Truth

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 27, 2017, 11:34:39 PM
Welcome to the board St Truth,

Does consciousness, volition, etc exist in humans? If so we can establish that consciousness, volition, etc exist. If you agree how can you rule that out as a potential cause? If your belief is mindless forces unintentionally created consciousness and volition in humans how can you rule out such forces did so before humans or the universe? Subsequently those beings caused this universe. If you dispute this possibility then you dispute the basis of our existence you subscribe to.

I'll ask you a question no one here seems to want to answer. Could natural forces like the one's alleged to have caused our universe to exist cause a virtual universe to exist like the ones scientists have created or are there phenomena which only could be caused by intelligent means?

As I have said previously, I'm currently in a different country and my time is vastly different from yours. I can only answer a small part of your question before I have to put my phone away or risk it being confiscated. It's a very human failing to think that there are phenomena that can only be caused by intelligent means. Even if you define a phenomenon to include the typing of the Complete works of Shakespeare, then of course it is still very likely for an unintelligent source to bring about over many million years by slow incremental changes an animal intelligent enough to do that. It's always conceivable that the ultimate source is impersonal and unintelligent. To postulate the ultimate source as something so developed as a Supreme Intelligence is to put the cart before the horse because it begs the question how indeed such a being could come to exist. To say that this Supreme Being has always existed is of course to make up your own rules to govern a presupposition that you have come up with in the first place. Letting one presupposition ride on the back of another presupposition (both presuppositions of which are not backed by any reason or evidence) is the embarrassing hallmark of theism and I'm not saying this disparagingly or with intent to hurt the delicate feelings of religionists because I too am a Christian and a pious altar boy.

But I am first and foremost none other than...

St Truth

Quote from: Baruch on September 23, 2017, 03:21:31 PM
True, bad scholars do that.  So do bad scientists.  Incompetence and mendacity isn't limited to theists.

The difference is that biblical scholars are always wrong and scientists are sometimes right.  Noah's Ark never existed.  But F=MA will always be right.

Incompetency and inaccuracy is not the same, though.  Biblical scholars are, by definition, not scientific.  Scientists can be inaccurate, but not by failure of the method.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 12:38:01 AM
The difference is that biblical scholars are always wrong and scientists are sometimes right.  Noah's Ark never existed.  But F=MA will always be right.

Incompetency and inaccuracy is not the same, though.  Biblical scholars are, by definition, not scientific.  Scientists can be inaccurate, but not by failure of the method.

Sorry, F=MA is wrong - Einstein

Equations in science are tools, not truths.  If the equation fits are particular problem, use it.  But don' mistake it for truth.  Noah's Ark exists as a meme.  Same as politics.  Are you saying that politics doesn't exist?

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 07:23:19 AM
Sorry, F=MA is wrong - Einstein

Equations in science are tools, not truths.  If the equation fits are particular problem, use it.  But don' mistake it for truth.  Noah's Ark exists as a meme.  Same as politics.  Are you saying that politics doesn't exist?

Tell that car coming at you that F doesn't = MA.

Too many religious people think Noah's Ark is real.

Your last statement is a Trump-tactic and I will ignore it.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 07:29:47 AM
Tell that car coming at you that F doesn't = MA.

Too many religious people think Noah's Ark is real.

Your last statement is a Trump-tactic and I will ignore it.

I am Ivanka ;-)  Your ignorance isn't anyone's gain.

Well the bar to get to grovel at the feet of 'the creator' was set just a tad too high for my taste. It reads like a laundry list of reasons for rejection on a dating site.
Not rich enough, check,
Not the perfect family guy, check
Hair too long, check
Too old, check
Don't have my own car or apartment, check
No job, check
Former heroin addict, check
Won't be jealous every time woman goes outside alone, check

Dammit, no wonder I am stuck living in a beautiful house on a lake and have no job or reason to find one! 

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 07:32:02 AM
I am Ivanka ;-)  Your ignorance isn't anyone's gain.

Nice to meet you Ivanka.  Does daddy love you?

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on September 28, 2017, 07:36:30 AM
Well the bar to get to grovel at the feet of 'the creator' was set just a tad too high for my taste. It reads like a laundry list of reasons for rejection on a dating site.
Not rich enough, check,
Not the perfect family guy, check
Hair too long, check
Too old, check
Don't have my own car or apartment, check
No job, check
Former heroin addict, check
Won't be jealous every time woman goes outside alone, check

Dammit, no wonder I am stuck living in a beautiful house on a lake and have no job or reason to find one!

Too bad you are Czech ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 07:36:42 AM
Nice to meet you Ivanka.  Does daddy love you?

Well, I usually know better than to wear high heels to the Houston hurricane flood ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 01:01:50 PM
Well, I usually know better than to wear high heels to the Houston hurricane flood ;-)

Hey, what's wrong with high heels to get you a few inches above the flood water?  I've read it is that last inch of water that gets you (or your car). 

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 11:09:50 PM
That only works if G-d is some superior alien creature.

How could the Creator God be a "superior alien creature" and still be the creator God? I suppose it could be prior to and outside of our universe, but we have no evidence that such could be the case, only pure speculation.

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 01:07:31 PM
Hey, what's wrong with high heels to get you a few inches above the flood water?  I've read it is that last inch of water that gets you (or your car).

My mom, Ivana isn't as smart as I was (she wore heels, hence the reference).  Young people are smarter than old people, just ask St Truth ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:15:39 PM
How could the Creator God be a "superior alien creature" and still be the creator God? I suppose it could be prior to and outside of our universe, but we have no evidence that such could be the case, only pure speculation.

You were the one, and others before you, who keep channeling Von Daniken.  Were you descended from one of the pets left on Earth accidentally by the Annunaki?

Quote from: Baruch on September 27, 2017, 11:23:41 PM
And your egomania ... needs diagnosis.  Hope you get help.  I now realize I am not the person for that job.

Oh? What was your first clue?

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 01:16:15 PM
My mom, Ivana isn't as smart as I was (she wore heels, hence the reference).  Young people are smarter than old people, just ask St Truth ;-)

Ah man, I MISSED that...

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 01:17:09 PM
You were the one, and others before you, who keep channeling Von Daniken.  Were you descended from one of the pets left on Earth accidentally by the Annunaki?

What the holy fuck are you talking about? Did you get up in a bad mood, or have you simply gone bonkers?

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:27:55 PM
What the holy fuck are you talking about? Did you get up in a bad mood, or have you simply gone bonkers?

It's OK, he often makes no sense.  To paraphrase Wally in 'Dilbert', he thinks he's funny sometimes but he isn't.  I would have quoted it, but the punctuation got a bit weird...  Sort of past pluperfect future garfunkle.

Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Hi TG! Welcome aboard, for Odin's sake!

Quote from: Tejas Green on September 28, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Marvel Comics...  But I forgive anyone who even remembers Thor's earthly origin; Dr. Don Blake who found a stick in a cave with Nurse Jane Foster and struck it against a wall.

Looking forward to your next posts.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:20:39 PM
Oh? What was your first clue?

Well, he does seem to be much like other posters here, except a lot younger ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 28, 2017, 01:27:55 PM
What the holy fuck are you talking about? Did you get up in a bad mood, or have you simply gone bonkers?

In old age, we start forgetting our own posts, or think they were written by someone else, who is impersonating us ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 01:33:03 PM
It's OK, he often makes no sense.  To paraphrase Wally in 'Dilbert', he thinks he's funny sometimes but he isn't.  I would have quoted it, but the punctuation got a bit weird...  Sort of past pluperfect future garfunkle.

So, you are a cunning linguist? ;-))

Quote from: Tejas Green on September 28, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Please make an intro post in the intro section.  And yes, I liked Thor too, but not as a feminist.  There are too many Valkyries already!

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 11:14:12 PM
I attended a talk by Jerry Coyne (i got him to autograph his wonderful book) and during the Q&A, he mentioned that anyone with the smallest intelligence must know that we do not have free will. I looked at my dad with horror. MENSA tested me and said that I had an IQ beyond the charts which means my IQ exceeds the MENSA maximum of 160 (which made me hope that mine was 200, like Einstein's, but then it's probably much less because I can't understand some physics books that I've read while Einstein could write physics books blindfolded) and I was wondering if there might have been a mistake in the test because I really thought I had free will. Coyne says most people think we have free will because if feels like we have free will but we are really determined by our genes and our upbringing and our genes will determine our reaction to the environment. I haven't thought much about it but I'd like to think that I have free will and I always voluntarily go with the TRUTH because I am...

St Truth

I'd think so even if it wasn't true. What I have found is those who argue against free will invariably exempt themselves from it and claim they arrived at their conclusion independently.

Quote from: St Truth on September 27, 2017, 11:45:43 PM
To postulate the ultimate source as something so developed as a Supreme Intelligence is to put the cart before the horse because it begs the question how indeed such a being could come to exist. To say that this Supreme Being has always existed is of course to make up your own rules to govern a presupposition that you have come up with in the first place. Letting one presupposition ride on the back of another presupposition (both presuppositions of which are not backed by any reason or evidence) is the embarrassing hallmark of theism and I'm not saying this disparagingly or with intent to hurt the delicate feelings of religionists because I too am a Christian and a pious altar boy.

I'm not a religious theist, I'm a theist on philosophical grounds for the moment the available evidence (imo) tilts in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator. Unlike some who answered the poll question I'm no where near as certain of theism as some are of naturalism.

Theism isn't about how a Creator came into existence, my focus on is on how the universe and humans came to exist. The same questions apply either way...how did the universe come to exist? Was it an endless recession of events? Did it poof into existence uncaused out of nothing or did it always exist which you seem to feel is making up my own rules. What rules are you referring to? How do you know the rules you refer to are the only rules? You seem to be injecting your own presuppositions.

QuoteAs I have said, depending on your definition of God, I may or may not accept its existence. If you define God to include an impersonal force, I accept the likelihood of its existence because a force is nothing new or fanciful. But if your God is a supernatural being with consciousness, I don't accept its existence because you are conjuring up a new entity without reason or evidence. I'm assuming you have neither reason nor evidence because I have been asking for that for a long time and nobody however religious he may be can possibly come up with the smallest shred of evidence.

At least you're an honest atheist who rejects the evidence prior to hearing it. I've duly made a case for why I subscribe to theism you can look on page 16 of this thread for a link but we can save time you'll undoubtedly say its fallacious arguments (without demonstrating how just saying so is more than ample). I'm still patiently waiting for the case for atheism or naturalism which ever you choose I don't play the zero sum game where dismissing one claim off hand makes the contrary claim true by default.

QuoteYou are employing another trickery of the church. Asking me to state my case against God is one famous trickery that the church uses and William Lane Craig (the man who's better off as a mean used car salesman) usually does in his debate. Let me spell it out to you so you don't repeat this egregious blunder.

I don't call people who subscribe to naturalism or atheism imbeciles for thinking so, unlike atheists on this board I don't make the absurd claim there isn't a shred of evidence that comports with belief in naturalism. Actually I'm not very interesting in your case against God I'm more interested in your case for naturalistic forces causing all we observe. Once you have laid it out for me in simple lay terms I'm confident I will agree I've been duped into thinking theism is true and be in your debt.

QuoteIt's NEVER for the atheist to state his case against any imaginary being whether it's God, Narnia, the poltergeist, fairies, pixies, leprechauns or the invisible teacup that circles planet Mars. It's for the person who asserts the existence of these objects to state their case.

Believe it or not I've been arguing with atheists for over 20 years (off and on its good to take a sabbatical from time to time) and I never once heard this argument. Simply brilliant! You just cut right through the chase. In spite of this original thinking...I'd still think someone who calls theists imbeciles would be less of a coward and grow some balls and make a case for what you think is true.

Quote from: Tejas Green on September 28, 2017, 03:08:51 PM
Gods are all fictitious nonsense. Except DC Comics' Thor. He's too cool to be fake. Except ... Thor's now a woman ... who used to be Dr. Donald Blake's love interest ... and she's a human ... but elevated to godhood status, I guess ... Oh crap, can we please stick with the Thor from my misspent youth, for Odin's sake?

Apparently you haven't witnessed Tom Brady play football. He is at bare minimum a football demi-god. I think his team should kneel before him...in fact the entire stadium should. Make a new anthem to Brady and forget about the national anthem. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 28, 2017, 09:28:47 PM
At least you're an honest atheist who rejects the evidence prior to hearing it. I've duly made a case for why I subscribe to theism you can look on page 16 of this thread for a link but we can save time you'll undoubtedly say its fallacious arguments (without demonstrating how just saying so is more than ample). I'm still patiently waiting for the case for atheism or naturalism which ever you choose I don't play the zero sum game where dismissing one claim off hand makes the contrary claim true by default.

I don't call people who subscribe to naturalism or atheism imbeciles for thinking so, unlike atheists on this board I don't make the absurd claim there isn't a shred of evidence that comports with belief in naturalism. Actually I'm not very interesting in your case against God I'm more interested in your case for naturalistic forces causing all we observe. Once you have laid it out for me in simple lay terms I'm confident I will agree I've been duped into thinking theism is true and be in your debt.

Believe it or not I've been arguing with atheists for over 20 years (off and on its good to take a sabbatical from time to time) and I never once heard this argument. Simply brilliant! You just cut right through the chase. In spite of this original thinking...I'd still think someone who calls theists imbeciles would be less of a coward and grow some balls and make a case for what you think is true.

When I say a theist is an imbecile, I don't mean he has a low IQ. I simply mean he is an imbecile in closing his mind to reality. He is an imbecile for coming up with the God proposition totally without reason and without evidence. You mention philosophy. All theists do that. But most theists who depend on philosophy are mere dabblers in philosophy. They do a Philosophy 101 in uni and they think they've got it all. Or as is more frequently the case they do a spot of self-study (usually from reading what's on the Internet) and they think they're philosophers. If you must look at the statistics, most living philosophers today are atheists. On the internet, it's the dabblers in philosophy who are theists.

ST TRUTH'S OBSERVATION

From my observation, I suspect the reason the dabblers go into philosophy is the same reason physics dabblers sometimes use quantum physics to say God exists. But again, just as the REAL philosophers tend to be atheists, the REAL physicists tend to be atheists too. But like philosophy dabblers, physics dabblers on the internet are almost all theists.

ST TRUTH'S INCISIVE CONCLUSION

I suspect the reason theists are drawn to Internet Philosophy or Internet Physics is they have nothing else to back their beliefs. If Magic were a respectable science, they would have flocked to it like bees to honey. They know that the real philosophers and the real physicists are atheists but they also know that these people won't be found on AF or any internet forum. They believe they can display their little Internet learning and they will at least sound respectable for believing in something that is so laughably discreditable.

I believe you when you said you knew nothing of the onus of proof and you insist that the onus is on the atheist. But that's as outrageous as asking an a-fairyist to prove there are no fairies. Please address your mind to this and I assure you the simplicity of the subject matter should be clear to you. Anyone who asserts the existence of any entity must show the existence of that entity. No, don't turn a blind eye to this because theists are sure to do it when confronted with this. I want you to focus on this for a minute - if you assert the existence of an invisible teapot that allegedly circles Mars, it is impossible for any sane person to show the lunacy of such a proposition. That's because it's implausible to prove a negative. It's for the person who asserts the existence of this teapot to show that it exists.

Similarly (hearken to me please for I can see your theistic fervour is turning your eyes away from my words), a person who asserts the existence of the pixie or (in your case) God, must show the existence of this pixie or (in your case) God.

Please grow a brain and show your evidence why God exists. If you don't like the name 'imbecile', show us you aren't one.

Until you are able to do that, no atheist should venture to prove  the non-existence of the invisible teapot, or the pixie, or the pink polka-dotted unicorn or (in your case) God.

I speak in truth for I am none other than...

St Truth

Quote from: Cavebear on September 28, 2017, 01:33:03 PM
It's OK, he often makes no sense.  To paraphrase Wally in 'Dilbert', he thinks he's funny sometimes but he isn't.  I would have quoted it, but the punctuation got a bit weird...  Sort of past pluperfect future garfunkle.

There is a reason why Baruch makes no sense. If I believed in fairies and I'm in an a-fairyist forum, I would behave the same way too.

1. Never explain why fairyism is true.
2. Never give any evidence for fairies.
3. Never engage anyone in an argument directly. If I do argue, I will sound nonsensical, humorous in a clownish way, and be as evasive as an eel coated in lubricating gel.
4. Mouth philosophical or spiritual inanities, particularly the older philosophers and the more mystical ones.
5. Speak contradictions and paradoxes. The more outrageously contradictory, the better. The wiser I'd appear and the more unlikely anyone would argue with me.
6. Poke fun at a-fairyism and call a-fairyists names in a jocular way.
7. Be light-hearted and comical all the time.

These are St Truth's 7 rules on how to survive if you believe in nonsense and yet want to appear respectable in the company of intelligent atheists.

I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings but I can't help speaking the truth, for I am...

St Truth

Fair categorization.  Isn't that proof of fair-ies?  Only part of that applies to me, but stereotype away.

Words are slippery things ... they can't be used with the precision you claim.  There are even problems when rigor is attempted in maths.  Ever read Principia Mathematica?

As a young person ... you aren't even a real dabbler yet.  Just a dabbler at dabbling.  Dabble, dabble.  You turkey you ;-)

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem destroyed the book before it was even finished, didn't it?

Quote from: Baruch on September 29, 2017, 01:20:46 PM
Fair categorization.  Isn't that proof of fair-ies?  Only part of that applies to me, but stereotype away.

Words are slippery things ... they can't be used with the precision you claim.  There are even problems when rigor is attempted in maths.  Ever read Principia Mathematica?

As a young person ... you aren't even a real dabbler yet.  Just a dabbler at dabbling.  Dabble, dabble.  You turkey you ;-)

When you have to resort to questioning the accuracy of our observation, I know theism is a lost cause. When you go so far as to say language is incapable of expressing our thoughts and ideas adequately, I know God is dead. When you talk about problems in maths and other irrelevant matters, I know God is entombed and we are dancing on his grave.

Quote from: St Truth on September 29, 2017, 09:26:17 AM
When I say a theist is an imbecile, I don't mean he has a low IQ. I simply mean he is an imbecile in closing his mind to reality. He is an imbecile for coming up with the God proposition totally without reason and without evidence.

We're all painfully familiar with the stock and trade of atheists to deny there is any evidence or reason to believe we owe our existence to a Creator.

If I said I believed in the thunder God Thor and you asked what evidence do I present in favor of Thor's existence and I said I attribute the thunder to Thor's existence would you agree or disagree that is evidence? If not why not? Please make the attempt to actually respond to this dialog rather than send me another 'atheist talking points' response. I'm expecting more from someone as frightfully clever as you.   

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 29, 2017, 01:31:08 PM
Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem destroyed the book before it was even finished, didn't it?

Exactly ... in trying to save appearances, Russell/Whitehead had to pull a paradox rabbit out of their hat.  But that was decades before Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem destroyed the idea of logical formalism being a panacea.  But that is what led to Turing and computers, so a net win ;-)  The definition of rigor in math is still up in the air as it was 100 years ago, but mathematicians shrug their shoulders and move on with such axioms as they can ... even if the axioms are, like the parallel postulate proved ... to be less than iron clad.  There isn't even a single foundation to logic, let alone maths.  But it adheres together pretty well anyway.

What you are trying to remember is that Russell's Paradox blew Frege's treatise on arithmetic out of the water, even before the Principia was completed.  Frege was trying to base all of maths on arithmetic.  Turns out that any maths sufficient for arithmetic, is inherently unstable, logically (aka you have to treat any set of axioms as incomplete, unlike Euclidean geometry).  If you assume completeness as an axiom, in addition to the primary axioms (for an arithmetical level set of postulates) then you create a self contradiction ... which ultimately reappear as the Halting Problem in computer science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92WHN-pAFCs

And that, IMHO, is why AI won't really work, and computers aren't sentient.  It would require a contradiction, however non-obvious.  Notice this example talks about simulation.  A simulation produces the same results, but not necessarily by the same means.  Emulation produces the same results, but by the same means.  To have AI, you can't just simulate sentience (aka the Turing Test), you have to emulate it.  Which requires a living sentient of some sort, not necessarily human.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 05:08:34 PM
We're all painfully familiar with the stock and trade of atheists to deny there is any evidence or reason to believe we owe our existence to a Creator.

It only looks that was when you presume that your God exists at the start, as you apparently do.  An outsider to religion looking in has a very different perspective.  Instead, they see a zealot trying to put up a big show of evidence despite not actually presenting anything genuine and attempting to shift the burden of proof to play at being a skeptic.  All that's in evidence here is that you've managed to delude yourself, which is neither surprising nor impressive.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 05:08:34 PM
We're all painfully familiar with the stock and trade of atheists to deny there is any evidence or reason to believe we owe our existence to a Creator.

It's not just atheists who say this. I, an altar boy, thurifer, choir boy and communicant of the Established Church of England do hereby declare and affirm that theists have absolutely no evidence or reason for their dumb belief in the existence of their silly dumb God and I stand by what I say because I see their total evasion whether in Christian Forums or here in Atheist Forums whenever they are asked for even a shred of evidence or an iota of reason. All they can do is to prevaricate, to make a joke out of everything as the AF Jester (Baruch) always does or they give me a reading list or they say something meaningless (they prefer the term 'mystical). Any theist who says this claim of atheists is not true is a rank liar. If he is ashamed of being called a liar, I urge him to present the FIRST piece of evidence that theists have ever presented since the time God was first born in the minds of the looniest theist.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 05:08:34 PM
If I said I believed in the thunder God Thor and you asked what evidence do I present in favor of Thor's existence and I said I attribute the thunder to Thor's existence would you agree or disagree that is evidence? If not why not? Please make the attempt to actually respond to this dialog rather than send me another 'atheist talking points' response.

Ho Ho Ho!!! Just what I thought. You see, I have been collecting St Truth's List of the Qualities, Properties and Attributes of the Theistic Mind purely from a clinical interest in theistic lunacy (please forgive my use of a word that tends to offend people but my intention is purely to describe what I see as theistic madness) and one of the properties is the theist's tendency of making everything appear as dumb as religion. For example, one frustrating thing I notice when I talk to theists is they like to call atheism a religion. That makes me really angry because it's so stupid. But they do it in order to make everything appear as dumb as their own religion. What philosophers might call the Reductio Everythingo.  Haha, am I not witty?

What you do here is to reduce the dignity of 'evidence' into something a two-year-old might say. To say that the thunder is the evidence of Thor's existence is no different from saying that the flower is the evidence of the existence of a fairy. Do you see now why I would say that in both examples, there is no EVIDENCE for the existence of either the flower or Thor? In my frightful cleverness (as you rightly term what I'm merely born with), I'll give you another example and then I'm sure even you will see why it's not evidence. Last night, I had a headache and I prayed to Jesus and guess what? This morning, my headache was gone. That is evidence that Jesus answered my prayer. My RECOVERY this morning is EVIDENCE that Jesus answers prayers.

Do you see now why the thunder can't be evidence for Thor's existence? When a brilliant atheist asks for evidence, he is asking for something which convincingly and incontrovertibly points to the existence of that which you assert exists. Thunder does not serve that function of pointing firmly and unequivocally to Thor and neither does the flower point directly and unwaveringly to fairies and neither does my recovery indicate clearly and unexceptionally that Jesus answers prayers.

What you have done, my dear Sir, is to employ the theist's flawed logic of Reductio Everythingo by reducing the definition of 'EVIDENCE' to the connecting link of a child. No, 'evidence' is the term the law courts use and it's not used in the children's playground. You mustn't reduce its dignity to child's play.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 05:08:34 PM
I'm expecting more from someone as frightfully clever as you.

I'm sure I don't disappoint you, for I only embrace the truth, seeing that I am none other than...

St Truth

You have made the nymphs and dryads sad ;-(

Quote from: St Truth on September 29, 2017, 09:36:14 AM
There is a reason why Baruch makes no sense. If I believed in fairies and I'm in an a-fairyist forum, I would behave the same way too.

1. Never explain why fairyism is true.
2. Never give any evidence for fairies.
3. Never engage anyone in an argument directly. If I do argue, I will sound nonsensical, humorous in a clownish way, and be as evasive as an eel coated in lubricating gel.
4. Mouth philosophical or spiritual inanities, particularly the older philosophers and the more mystical ones.

Baruch does do a lot of that but I don't question his sincerity...only his sanity at times.

If I was a naturalist-atheist rather than make a case in favor or naturalism from facts, evidence and experimental data (which obviously I would if I could) I'd pretend I don't make any claim only the theist does. Then whatever facts, evidence or data a theist presents I'd go to my data base of excuses:

1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

I'll either deny any fact is evidence, claim its fallacious or a straw-man or whatever excuse is handy at the moment. Even if I'm water boarded I will never concede there is any fact or reason why people believe we owe our existence to a Creator.   

2. If God created the universe, who created God?

To avoid answering the question if naturalistic forces created-caused the universe who or what caused-created naturalistic forces? Did they bootstrap themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing or did they always exist? I don't know who or how a Creator came into existence I'm seeking an answer to the existence of the universe and humans.

3. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If I said belief in naturalism is as goofy as belief in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause can I rest my case because that proves how silly naturalism is? If I call people who believe in naturalism imbeciles does that prove theism is true? If it was the same they wouldn't have to compare theism to other myths. Do atheists lack belief in the Tooth fairy or do they disbelieve in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause?

In short I'd do anything and everything to avoid a real dialog. Yet in spite of all this hemming and hawing dodging and weaving I'd still state I'm 99.9999% sure the universe wasn't caused by a Creator while saying I make no claims. 

Ho Ho Ho!!! This is so funny. Folks, it's textbook theistic trickery here. It's a good exercise to see what theistic trickery is all about. I'll expose everything so next time, you encounter a theistic trickery, you can chuckle to yourself and say, 'St Truth has exposed it all and I now know how to tackle such flawed logic.'

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 09:06:17 PM

If I was a naturalist-atheist rather than make a case in favor or naturalism from facts, evidence and experimental data (which obviously I would if I could) I'd pretend I don't make any claim only the theist does. Then whatever facts, evidence or data a theist presents I'd go to my data base of excuses:

Observe what he's doing here. This is:
Classic Theistic Lunacy No. 1: Do all you can to shift the burden of proof on the atheist. 
First, he turns atheism into a belief. A deranged woman with her hair strewn all over her face in Christian Forums did precisely this to me when I brought up the burden of proof being on the person who asserts the existence of something. She says the atheist asserts the existence of no-god. My God!!! Can you believe that??? She ought to be put in a straitjacket and thrown into a padded cell for such an incurable lunacy.

What Drew is doing is the same. Instead of talking about the existence of his Sky Daddy God (notice he has refused to talk about the attributes of this Old Man Magician in the Sky) he turns his attention to the creation of the universe. But what he fails to appreciate is this. We can't be sure of the origin of the universe but this uncertainty is no excuse for a theistic loony to jump to the conclusion that God exists. And this is a SEPARATE ISSUE. You cannot say that because I am uncertain of SOMETHING, you are entitled to sink into the depths of your lunacy and conjure up the existence of this fanciful supernatural being.

To lend credence to his insistence that the atheist BELIEVES in something, he uses:
Classic Theistic Lunacy No. 2: Give a name to the supposed belief of an atheist and make it seem like it's an assertion of the existence of something.
So, he calls it naturalistic atheism and to him, a naturalistic atheist is one who ASSERTS that the universe originates from natural causes.

This Theistic Trickery only works if the subject matter is something that science is uncertain about. The origin of the universe is a good example. Quantum physics is also quite handy for this purpose because most people don't understand it much. Of course the theistic lunatic has no clue what quantum physics is - he just uses it to support his theistic lunacy.

But the point is we are not asserting that the origin of the universe is CAUSED by the natural forces that we understand today which are forces operating in our universe AFTER the Big Bang. Frankly, nobody knows for sure. It's this uncertainty that is fodder to the theistic lunatic. Throughout the history of humanity, theistic lunatics have been doing that - from postulating a thunder god for the existence of thunder (which I'll come to later and which Drew himself has picked as a good example of what evidence means to him) which people then did not understand a thing about to the curing of diseases before the discovery of bacteria.

This is really the classic God of the gaps nonsense but couched in a clever way to conceal its true nature. Remember, there is never anything new in theistic lunacy. A madman in the 2000BC is still a madman today. The only difference is the madhouse which has become more cosy for lunatics.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 09:06:17 PM
1. There is no evidence for God’s existence.

I'll either deny any fact is evidence, claim its fallacious or a straw-man or whatever excuse is handy at the moment. Even if I'm water boarded I will never concede there is any fact or reason why people believe we owe our existence to a Creator.   

Let me pick on what he says here. He says 'I'll deny any fact is evidence'. Just before Drew posted this, he wrote another post that illustrates quite clearly what he means by 'fact'. He explains in that post that thunder is a fact. We all accept that. But Drew goes on to say that thunder is EVIDENCE for the existence of Thor. We certainly don't accept that because only lunatics accept that. No, thunder is NOT the evidence for the existence of Thor. So, when Drew says an atheist denies any fact is evidence, he is extending the refusal of atheists to accept thunder as evidence for Thor to a generic refusal to accept any fact as evidence. That is a lie. Atheists do not accept ANY fact as evidence. We do not accept a fact as evidence for the WRONG things. That is all. But in his theistic lunacy, Drew sees the atheist's refusal to accept thunder as evidence for Thor as an example of the atheist's alleged refusal to accept ANY fact as evidence for ANYTHING the lunatic theistic mind comes up with.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 09:06:17 PM
2. If God created the universe, who created God?

To avoid answering the question if naturalistic forces created-caused the universe who or what caused-created naturalistic forces? Did they bootstrap themselves into existence uncaused out of nothing or did they always exist? I don't know who or how a Creator came into existence I'm seeking an answer to the existence of the universe and humans.

Although Drew is terrified of defining 'God' because he wants to hide his fairy godmother who he is embarrassed to say actually comes complete with wings and a magic wand, it's important to define God before we can begin with a discussion. But like most theists, Drew won't do it for the obvious reason that his God probably wears a pink crown on its hoary old head.

The reason is clear. If God is defined as merely the cause of the Big Bang, a hitherto unknown force that existed before the singularity, I doubt an atheist would deny the possibility of the existence of such a force. An atheist probably only objects to a God which is personal and imbued with intelligence, volition, magic (of course we mustn't forget magic - it's the lunatic's favourite), etc. When I said Drew's idea of a god is probably that of a fairy godmother who comes with her wand and wings, I was not joking. That's because if Drew's God were an impersonal force, he wouldn't be jumping up and down like a monkey on hot coals. This is classic theistic lunacy - a belief in a fairy godmother kind of god but with a reluctance to say it because sane people will laugh if they hear it and  hence, Drew has refused to define his God. But a definition is essential because there would be no argument if he weren't lunatic enough to define God as a personal being with intelligence and volition.

The logic is simple. If there is to be something that is the original uncaused cause, a sane man must be able to see that it's more probable for such an entity to be a simple force. If it were a complex being like blooming God with his magic and his wings and his intelligence and his volition, the need for a cause for each of these attributes would negate the likelihood of such a complex being being an uncaused cause. If God can see, what caused his sight? If he can hear, what caused his hearing. A complex being attracts an explanation of more causes. But a lunatic can't see that.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 09:06:17 PM
3. Believing in God is the same as believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If I said belief in naturalism is as goofy as belief in the Tooth fairy and Santa Clause can I rest my case because that proves how silly naturalism is? If I call people who believe in naturalism imbeciles does that prove theism is true? If it was the same they wouldn't have to compare theism to other myths. Do atheists lack belief in the Tooth fairy or do they disbelieve in the tooth fairy and Santa Clause?

This is pure lunacy that is most deserving of a straitjacket and a thickly padded cell. An atheist does not believe in ANYTHING more than a theistic lunatic. It's the theistic lunatic who believes a hell of a lot. Instead of just fairies, he believes in a Fairy Godmother up in the sky. It's a bigger fairy the theist believes in. Instead of a Santa Claus on a flying reindeer, the theistic lunatic believes in a God who flies on a chariot. Can't you see? The difference between a fairy believer and a theistic lunatic is in the insanity of the belief. The theist's insanity takes a large proportion. His has to be a mega-fairy, a mega-Santa Claus. An atheist doesn't believe in any of these.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 29, 2017, 09:06:17 PM
In short I'd do anything and everything to avoid a real dialog. Yet in spite of all this hemming and hawing dodging and weaving I'd still state I'm 99.9999% sure the universe wasn't caused by a Creator while saying I make no claims.

Only theistic lunatics avoid dialogues. They always have. They joke, poke fun at everything, speak inanities (that reflect their insanity), prevaricate and alway evade the issue discussed. Look, you even refused to define 'God', the very crux of the subject matter to be discussed. How more evasive can anyone get?

Ultimately, if you bring in the origin of the universe, the fact is an atheist doesn't know for sure. There are theories such as the Big Bang. But nobody knows for sure. But the theistic lunatic immediately says that it's GOD that did it. He caused the Big Bang. If I may use the very good example you gave, transport yourself back to the time when we didn't know what thunder was.  The atheist will say he doesn't know for sure but perhaps it was a force of sorts. But the theistic lunatic immediately says that it was god, Thor, the god of thunder. Can you not see why this is the same old God of the gaps argument again? At every frontier of science where there is a gap, you guys will slip in your lubricated God into whatever tiny hole he can be squeezed in. It was thunder then and it's the origin of the universe today.

The sane man does not postulate a god at every juncture where our knowledge halts. You are wrong to say that the atheist says it's natural forces that caused the Big Bang. Natural forces probably didn't exist before the Big Bang. Here's a lacuna in our knowledge. A gap. And you do the most natural thing - slip in your well-lubricated God into the gap as you have done throughout human history.

Know ye not that the truth shall set you free of God? I'm the purveyor of truth for I am...

St Truth

Quote from: St Truth on September 29, 2017, 08:05:47 PM
I urge him to present the FIRST piece of evidence that theists have ever presented since the time God was first born in the minds of the looniest theist.

Why bother with the farce of pretending there is any known fact you'd consider to be evidence in favor of theism? Why should I defer to my adversary as to what is or isn't evidence?

QuoteWhat you do here is to reduce the dignity of 'evidence' into something a two-year-old might say. To say that the thunder is the evidence of Thor's existence is no different from saying that the flower is the evidence of the existence of a fairy. Do you see now why I would say that in both examples, there is no EVIDENCE for the existence of either the flower or Thor?

Evidence is nothing more than facts that comport with a belief.

1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Whether something indicates a belief or proposition is true or valid is known as its probative value. At the time people believed in a thunder god, thunder and lightening were awesome displays of power that were otherwise inexplicable to them. Simplistic? Sure. Incorrect? Absolutely. Nevertheless for what the people knew at the time the explanation was reasonable and due to the available evidence and information. 

This illustrates a point, evidence isn't proof a belief is correct. The real world is far more complicated than that. The closest humans know how to arrive at the truth of a matter is if they can prove it scientifically and experimentally. Second closet would be to prove a belief beyond a reasonable doubt. Least level of proof is a mere preponderance meaning more than against a belief. In some cases the only evidence available is circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of factâ€"like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directlyâ€"i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out

What we are talking about (if we were willing to have an honest conversation) is whether the universe and humans came into existence intentionally as the result of a transcendent personal agent commonly referred to as God or whether we are the result of mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence, the existence of the universe or the laws of physics. We either owe our existence to planning and engineering or happenstance. The evidence for or against these beliefs is everything we observe. Whether you accept it or not they're facts that comport with either belief. No one has established their opinion in this matter scientifically or beyond a reasonable doubt.   

Quote from: St Truth on September 29, 2017, 10:53:25 PM
Observe what he's doing here. This is:
Classic Theistic Lunacy No. 1: Do all you can to shift the burden of proof on the atheist. 

Not at all I've already provided my burden of evidence on page 16. Of course as my adversary you won't agree I made a case or its evidence but that's expected. People don't debate on things they agree on and certainly not if my adversary agrees.

QuoteFirst, he turns atheism into a belief.

A disbelief about something (unless its proven to be false) is a belief! Its a belief the belief is false. Just as a belief about something (unless proven to be true) is a belief. Disbelief's except in the fantasy world of some atheists don't get a free pass from having to substantiate a claim. Especially in this case because we either owe our existence to a Creator that intentionally caused the universe or to mindless forces that didn't intend the universe or us to exist. You will object of course but it doesn't matter anyone who reads this who doesn't have an ax to grind will agree its one of the other. I could play the atheist game if I wanted to, just say I'm an a-naturalist that doesn't deny we owe our existence to natural causes I just lack that belief. But this is what you resort to when you can't argue it straight up. When you have facts and data you argue facts and data if not you argue smoke and mirrors.

If I said the US didn't land on the moon and those who believe we did are imbeciles, would I, under some wacky thesis be exempt from having a burden of evidence? If someone did ask me for evidence of this claim would I have the nerve to say the burden of evidence is on the the person who claims the US landed on the moon and I get to determine if the evidence is valid. Should I under some carnival mirror world assert that the default position is the US didn't land on the moon? Oh let me share this golden nugget of atheist wisdom....babies don't believe the US landed on the moon do they? Would I have the audacity to say prove to me there is no tea cup circling around Saturn in defense of providing no evidence?       

That's as much of your rambling I can take down for the night.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 12:01:27 AM
Not at all I've already provided my burden of evidence on page 16. Of course as my adversary you won't agree I made a case or its evidence but that's expected. People don't debate on things they agree on and certainly not if my adversary agrees.

I was going to accuse you of telling a lie but I won't. Instead I'll give you an opportunity of redeeming yourself. I looked through the entire page 16 and you have not given a shred of evidence. Not the smallest drop. If you did, I suggest you copy and paste it here. It's very simple. We can determine if you lied or I'm blind. My experience with Christians in CF is the same. They love to say they gave evidence in this or that thread or on this or that page but when I check, they have not given their highly elusive evidence. It's always like that. Getting a shred of evidence from a theist is like asking him to disembowel himself and draw out his lifeblood. This is why I have no respect for theists. They are evasive and dishonest while I'm St Truth.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 12:01:27 AM
A disbelief about something (unless its proven to be false) is a belief! Its a belief the belief is false. Just as a belief about something (unless proven to be true) is a belief. Disbelief's except in the fantasy world of some atheists don't get a free pass from having to substantiate a claim. Especially in this case because we either owe our existence to a Creator that intentionally caused the universe or to mindless forces that didn't intend the universe or us to exist. You will object of course but it doesn't matter anyone who reads this who doesn't have an ax to grind will agree its one of the other. I could play the atheist game if I wanted to, just say I'm an a-naturalist that doesn't deny we owe our existence to natural causes I just lack that belief. But this is what you resort to when you can't argue it straight up. When you have facts and data you argue facts and data if not you argue smoke and mirrors.

Are you really that dumb? You have deliberately ignored my earlier post but I'll say it again. An atheist does not postulate that nature 'created' the universe. That is a fallacy only theists make. As I have told you, nature did not create the universe or caused the Big Bang because nature did not exist prior to the singularity. So what you say an atheist 'believes in' is a figment of your imagination just like your dumb God. So you are constructing a case which is false in order to make an atheist believe in something he doesn't believe in so that you can say the onus of proof is on the atheist.

As I have explained, an atheist does not know what caused the Big Bang. But not knowing something does not give you the right to lubricate your God with KY gel (yes, I know what that is) and insert him into the gaps of scientific knowledge. Theistic loonies like you did that with thunder and declared that Thor was the cause of thunder. The fact that you share in this ancient lunacy can be seen in the earlier post in which you insisted that thunder was evidence for Thor. I almost died laughing when I read what you wrote. I can see you now avoid talking about it because I think even you are capable of blushing at your own theistic lunacy.

The origin of the universe is something intelligent people do not know because it's beyond the far reaches of scientific frontier. But theistic lunatics postulate a fully developed God with consciousness and intelligence as the cause of the universe. Atheists simply say they are not certain what caused it. So the onus is still on you to show God's existence. Just pull your God out of the gap, rub of the lubricant and present it to us for our scrutiny.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 12:01:27 AM
If I said the US didn't land on the moon and those who believe we did are imbeciles, would I, under some wacky thesis be exempt from having a burden of evidence? If someone did ask me for evidence of this claim would I have the nerve to say the burden of evidence is on the the person who claims the US landed on the moon and I get to determine if the evidence is valid. Should I under some carnival mirror world assert that the default position is the US didn't land on the moon? Oh let me share this golden nugget of atheist wisdom....babies don't believe the US landed on the moon do they? Would I have the audacity to say prove to me there is no tea cup circling around Saturn in defense of providing no evidence? 

Are you really an adult or are you a young child masquerading as an adult? I really cannot believe you can think straight. Why do all theists have this insurmountable problem in coming to grips with the burden of proof? I can see it so clearly but you can't. The burden of proof of the Apollo moon landing is on the party that asserts it happened. The burden is not on anyone else. This is as simple as ABC. Hence the burden of showing that there was a moon-landing rests squarely on the shoulder of the party that asserts it - in this case, it's NASA.

NASA did discharge the burden by showing clear evidence of the flight and landing. The entire trip to the moon was filmed and the whole world watched it. The entire event is recorded in peer reviewed journals of astronomy. I know all this because my grandparents saw the whole thing on TV. It was that long ago - even before my parents' time. But the evidence was copious and monumental.

I hope you are capable of blushing for not understanding the burden of proof and insisting that it's on the person who didn't assert the moon-landing. No, the burden is always on NASA and they showed irrefutable evidence.

Now, we look at all theists including you. What evidence have you shown? NONE. ZILCH. You said the evidence was presented by you on page 16 but I have examined that page and it's a lie. You did not present ANY evidence. Go ahead, copy and paste it here. But I know you won't do that because you lied and you know you gave no evidence.

But that's OK. People who read this thread will know what dishonest folks theists are. It's the same on CF. They are all dumb and dishonest. Dumb because they can never get the issues right and dishonest because they say they have a mountain of evidence but they can't give even a speck of it.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 12:01:27 AM
That's as much of your rambling I can take down for the night.

Wise though my words are, they are no substitute for the medication you obviously need for your theistic lunacy.

I await the evidence which you have not given.

I remain the one and only...

St Truth

There's the rub.  What constitutes evidence, if you have evidentiary prejudice?  Atheists and theists certainly do.  I don't agree with Drew's evidence because it requires perfect knowledge of the Big Bang.  I don't agree with the usual anti-evidence (show me a space alien who created the Earth aka pan-dimensional mice).  Neither are talking about the same kind of god anyway, they are talking past each other.

I do understand the notion of ... lack of evidence means you can't convert the hypothesis into a theory.  On that, procedural detail, the atheists here are right.  But then, they create a straw-man god, and reject any evidence contrary to their POV, which they claim isn't a hypothesis (something Drew doesn't agree with, he says they have an implied hypothesis).  Can hypotheses be implied?

For all of you, excepting myself, you either misdefine "god", "God" or "G-d", you also usually rely on the distant past or distant future (science will prove atheists right eventually, because it leads to the Omega Point of human omniscience) instead of the here and now (which is the only scientific island to stand on in a sea of ignorance).  And usually actual science isn't presented, science fiction is (aka the philosophy of scientism and the psychology of megalomania).

1. Misdefine subject (what vs who)
2. Engage in multiple logical fallacies (explicit vs implicit hypotheses)
3. Engage in empirical inanities (rely on the distant past or distant future)

As long as people have unacknowledged hypotheses, are not engage in the here and now, and deliberately misdefine their subject (god is banana pudding) ... why are y'all discussing this?  Argue instead about the World Series of baseball on Alpha Centauri in 3017.

Here is my explicit argument BTW ...
1. Only real things exist, aka the answer to what?
2. Only existing things are real, aka they are equivalent
3. We only know what exists, in the here and now
4. Living beings are both a what and a who
5. So ask, what are you and who are you (this implies the here/now POV)

If you disagree with this you are a fantasist ... atheist can be fantasists too.  We can also disagree on the answers to #5.  My answer is ...
A. Any living being is more than a rock, more than an it
B. I am a living being, therefor I am more than a rock, more than an it

If you disagree with my answers you are a rock.  If you simply say "I make no hypothesis" are you claiming to be Newton?  It is a quote from him.  If you define everything as nature, then I can equally define everything as supernatural ... and I do.  This is where MikeCL and I disagree.  Also we commonly disagree on the other aspect of "natural" ... what is "artificial".  To some people, nothing is artificial.  If it happens, it is natural, because natural=real=existence ... which is Newspeak.  Artificial is a corollary with who? ... it implies that something exists as a consequence of an action by a who/what not a pure what.  A building is artificial, a landslide is only natural.  Ignoring the difference is stupid.

St Truth,

Do me a favor...stop speaking about me in the third person and grandstanding for your adoring audience, most of people in this forum are committed atheists you won't need to convince them of anything.

QuoteBut the point is we are not asserting that the origin of the universe is CAUSED by the natural forces that we understand today which are forces operating in our universe AFTER the Big Bang. Frankly, nobody knows for sure. It's this uncertainty that is fodder to the theistic lunatic. Throughout the history of humanity, theistic lunatics have been doing that - from postulating a thunder god for the existence of thunder (which I'll come to later and which Drew himself has picked as a good example of what evidence means to him) which people then did not understand a thing about to the curing of diseases before the discovery of bacteria.

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.

QuoteWhen I said Drew's idea of a god is probably that of a fairy godmother who comes with her wand and wings, I was not joking.

Maybe we share the same god...kindly benevolent mother nature who so thoughtfully caused the conditions for human existence without trying or planning to.

QuoteBut the point is we are not asserting that the origin of the universe is CAUSED by the natural forces that we understand today which are forces operating in our universe AFTER the Big Bang.

I wouldn't speak for all your fellow atheists...just yourself. I agree the forces of nature (and time for that matter) came into existence to the best of available knowledge after the big bang. Are forces we are completely unfamiliar with 'natural' also even though you have no grasp what they are? The natural supernatural delineation is just an atheist boogeyman. It only means no God nothing else.

Quote from: St Truth on September 30, 2017, 03:25:33 AM
I was going to accuse you of telling a lie but I won't. Instead I'll give you an opportunity of redeeming yourself. I looked through the entire page 16 and you have not given a shred of evidence. Not the smallest drop.

It was a link which I have now inserted in my signature so you can't miss it.

QuoteAre you really that dumb? You have deliberately ignored my earlier post but I'll say it again. An atheist does not postulate that nature 'created' the universe.

Knock it off with the constant demeaning comments. If you're nearly as intelligent as you think you are you won't need to use them. Secondly don't deceive yourself into thinking if you say something that I will believe it. What most of the atheists on this board call nature is anything that isn't what they call supernatural or God. If the universe came from a singularity they would still refer to that as natural causes. Do you call this other force that's not nature as we know it supernatural?   

QuoteThat is a fallacy only theists make. As I have told you, nature did not create the universe or caused the Big Bang because nature did not exist prior to the singularity.

We agree on this point. But you don't think it was supernatural right? If something isn't supernatural what is it?

QuoteSo what you say an atheist 'believes in' is a figment of your imagination just like your dumb God. So you are constructing a case which is false in order to make an atheist believe in something he doesn't believe in so that you can say the onus of proof is on the atheist.

Why are you so scared to make a case in favor of what you believe? If I said I did believe in the thunder god Thor instead of playing the I don't have a burden of evidence game you'd bury me with facts, data and evidence and prove I was imbecilic. When you have the facts in your favor you argue the facts...when you don't you resort to smoke and mirrors.

QuoteAs I have explained, an atheist does not know what caused the Big Bang. But not knowing something does not give you the right to lubricate your God with KY gel (yes, I know what that is) and insert him into the gaps of scientific knowledge.

I agree I also agree it doesn't give you right to insert naturalism into the gaps. Lets define naturalism as not God.

QuoteThe origin of the universe is something intelligent people do not know because it's beyond the far reaches of scientific frontier. But theistic lunatics postulate a fully developed God with consciousness and intelligence as the cause of the universe. Atheists simply say they are not certain what caused it. So the onus is still on you to show God's existence. Just pull your God out of the gap, rub of the lubricant and present it to us for our scrutiny.

If atheists professed their ignorance in this matter all would be fine. That's not what they say...in this poll several folks said they were 99.9999% sure a Creator wasn't involved. Doesn't that sound like they know something? Doesn't that sound like a knowledge claim? What's your basis for calling theism lunacy while at the same time admitting your ignorance?
     

QuoteThe burden of proof of the Apollo moon landing is on the party that asserts it happened. The burden is not on anyone else. This is as simple as ABC. Hence the burden of showing that there was a moon-landing rests squarely on the shoulder of the party that asserts it - in this case, it's NASA.

Baloney. The people who claim the USA didn't land on the moon have an equal burden of evidence if they want to sell that notion to the public. Same for people who offensively claim the Holocaust never happened. I know this is gospel truth in atheist culture that negative claims don't bear a burden but its so nonsensical its sad you don't take any time to apply a modicum of skepticism to all the atheists arguments you have regurgitated thus far.

QuoteNASA did discharge the burden by showing clear evidence of the flight and landing. The entire trip to the moon was filmed and the whole world watched it. The entire event is recorded in peer reviewed journals of astronomy. I know all this because my grandparents saw the whole thing on TV. It was that long ago - even before my parents' time. But the evidence was copious and monumental.

Wonderful I'll play the atheist role. Are you so moronic that you believe videos produced by (the very people we accuse of a hoax) were real? How can you be that freaking stupid? Do you deny NASA has a massive budget and could easily recreate the landing in a studio? Yet you're so naive you accept a video made by NASA as evidence. Do you even know what evidence is! If you actually do have some evidence (direct indisputable undeniable incontestable facts) let me know...

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 29, 2017, 07:38:38 PM
It only looks that was when you presume that your God exists at the start, as you apparently do.

On what basis do you make this erroneous claim? Have you not heard me agree there is evidence in favor of naturalism? I have mentioned on several occasions evidence that if it came to light would change my opinion regarding theism. I made a case for naturalism as well as theism. Since when does presumption bother you? Isn't it presumptuous to claim atheism or naturalism is the default position? Yet many of you do so proudly. And what do atheists offer in support of this claim? Babies! Yes out of the mouth of babes.

QuoteInstead, they see a zealot trying to put up a big show of evidence despite not actually presenting anything genuine and attempting to shift the burden of proof to play at being a skeptic.  All that's in evidence here is that you've managed to delude yourself, which is neither surprising nor impressive.

Its not surprising or impressive my evidence and arguments don't persuade an avowed atheist and adversary on this matter. Its expected.   

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
St Truth,

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.

That is my point which you seem so obtusely unable to comprehend. Atheists and theists today do not know the cause of the origin of the universe. Theists postulate that a well-developed, intelligent, conscious and complex entity called God was the cause. Theists are the ones who assert the existence of an entity in the face of man's lack of knowledge. Atheists are not proposing anything new. So, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air. Is it so hard to understand this and you claim to be a grown man?

You say the basis for your belief in God is based on what we do know. We know the universe exists. You postulate it's caused by a well-developed, intelligent, conscious and complex entity called God. You cannot use the universe as EVIDENCE for God's existence. You must show a connecting link between the two.

This is the same as the wonderful example you gave in your earlier post. You claimed that thunder is the evidence for the existence of Thor, the thunder god.  As I told you, you were wrong. It's not evidence because you must show a link between thunder and Thor. If you are unable to show a link, you can't say it's evidence.

What you are doing with the universe today is no different from what ancient folks did with thunder. It's the same god of the gaps folly that theists always fall for. You once postulated Thor's existence from the fact of thunder. You now postulate God's existence from the fact of the existing universe. If you had half the intelligence  of the average atheist, you'd blush at your own dumbness. But only you and your fellow imbecile theists will cheer each other for stating making dumb remarks.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
Maybe we share the same god...kindly benevolent mother nature who so thoughtfully caused the conditions for human existence without trying or planning to.

To all the intelligent people who know theism is a lunacy: be careful whenever a dumb theist makes such a remark. For sure he is trying to make his foolish proposition of a well-developed, intelligent, conscious and complex entity called God into something as natural as nature. You must resist it if he carries the analogy further. I, St Truth, am teaching atheists how to spot the theistic lunatic's trickery. They have no reason, no logic, no intelligence; but just a bag of tricks. The problem with atheists is they tend to be too guileless but the unintelligent theist is wily and devious and can easily do a sleight of hand to befuddle the atheist. I am the theist's nightmare because as an altar boy and a devout Christian, I'm not unfamiliar with all the tricks of the theistic trade. And I mean to expose them in all their hideous dishonesty.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 02:45:14 PM
I wouldn't speak for all your fellow atheists...just yourself. I agree the forces of nature (and time for that matter) came into existence to the best of available knowledge after the big bang. Are forces we are completely unfamiliar with 'natural' also even though you have no grasp what they are? The natural supernatural delineation is just an atheist boogeyman. It only means no God nothing else.

This is the reason why Drew refuses to define God. All theists do this even on CF. They want God to be a nebulous entity that can fit into any definition. The broader God is, the easier it is to defend this fiction of theirs. This is what he's doing when he talks about the delineation between natural and supernatural. The devious theistic mind is simplistic in its dumbness -
First, scientists have postulated that there is no matter or time before the singularity of the Big Bang. Like honey to bees, this of course attracts theists to bring in their god of the gaps. So, they ask what caused the Big Bang.

The answer to that is we don't know. Once there is a lack of knowledge, theists jump for joy because their dumb God can now be slipped into the gap of human knowledge if you apply enough lubricant on the shaft of God's body. Because nature only exists after the Big Bang, the dumb theist concludes that whatever it is that causes the Big Bang MUST be supernatural. Here is where their devious refusal to define God helps. If a hitherto non-existent force was the one that caused the Big Bang, the theist will insist that this force should be labelled 'SUPERNATURAL" because it's not a part of nature since nature only exists after the Big Bang singularity. But there is a HUGE difference between postulating a hitherto unknown force AND postulating a fully developed complex multi-faceted, conscious, intelligent God with super magical powers.

But this is negating the Big Bang theory which says there is NOTHING before the Big Bang. Not even time. You can't slip God or G_d or G-d in even if you wrap him in a condom and coat him with lubricant. It's STUPID to postulate something before the Big Bang and insist it's supernatural and therefore it's God. The fact is if you follow the Big Bang theory, there should be nothing, not even time before the Big Bang. If you say there is something, then you can't use the Big Bang theory. Or you can come up with the multiverse idea of a series of universes. Again, all these do not require the postulation of a fully developed complex multi-faceted, conscious, intelligent God with super magical powers which is the brainchild of primitive imbeciles and adopted lock stock and barrel by theistic loonies.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 04:44:23 PM
It was a link which I have now inserted in my signature so you can't miss it.

Yes, I read your dumb write-up. All I have said above addresses everything raised in your write-up.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 04:44:23 PM
Knock it off with the constant demeaning comments. If you're nearly as intelligent as you think you are you won't need to use them. Secondly don't deceive yourself into thinking if you say something that I will believe it. What most of the atheists on this board call nature is anything that isn't what they call supernatural or God. If the universe came from a singularity they would still refer to that as natural causes. Do you call this other force that's not nature as we know it supernatural?   

Yes, I can understand everything that happened from the Big Bang is natural. Your question is not clearly put. If you mean to ask whether I would call the force that causes the Big Bang supernatural, my answer is as follows:

First, we don't know if there is a cause to the Big Bang in the first place. Lawrence Krauss in his book 'A Universe from Nothing' suggests that it may not have a cause from the discovery that subatomic particles have been shown to appear from nothing. I've met him at a talk and my oh my Lawrence Krauss is so intelligent that theists are not even fit to kneel down and tie his shoelaces.

Supposing we postulate that there is a cause. We would then be amending the Big Bang theory that there is NOTHING, not even time before the Big Bang. As one astrophysicist puts it, you can't even say 'before the Big Bang' because there is no before to the Big Bang. But bear in mind that all this is a theory and this is a big gap in human knowledge but please don't jump for joy and get your lubricant ready to push dumb G-d in. Yes, I wrote G-d as if God was a dirty word. LOL

I know what you are trying to do. You are hoping I'd say that the force won't be natural and so it must be supernatural. Can you not see that this again a theistic trick? You use labels to justify God's existence. If something is not natural, it must be supernatural and since God is defined as supernatural, that something must be God.

There was a time in human history when men did not know there was such a thing as the gaseous state. They could see solid and liquid states. X realises that when you boil water, a part of the liquid water disappears. Obviously it gets turned into something invisible. He insists that what is solid and liquid are 'natural'. So when we boil water, natural matter (ie water) gets turned into the supernatural. Ergo, God exists because if you say there is in existence something which is not natural, ie supernatural, similarly the theist can say God (who is supernatural) exists.

But this is the flaw in the theist's argument from labels or in its proper Latin name, argumentum ad labellum. Haha, am I not witty? Because in the ancient world, natural things are things that exist in solid and liquid forms. So gas is supernatural and if I say the gaseous state exists, what is to prevent the theist from saying God exists?

It's the same with the argument about the cause of the Big Bang. It's plausible that outside of our current understanding of what is natural, there are other forces that exist before the singularity. But calling these forces supernatural will only lead the theist to slip in his lubricated phallic God into the picture. That is why labels are so useful to the theist. But it's dishonest because just as the ancient guy names the gaseous state 'supernatural', the theist today names a force that we know nothing of today 'supernatural'.

This is why Drew refuses to define his God. Because it would become clear when the term supernatural is used for the intelligent person to see that there is a huge difference between a hitherto unknown force and a fully developed complex intelligent conscious God with magical powers. To call both by the same label 'supernatural' will only afford the theist to use their favourite argumentum ad labellum.

One other thing we have to be careful about as intelligent atheists is the stupidity of theists. It takes a lot of my time to explain simple things to Drew and other theists. And sometimes they just don't seem to get it. I used to think they were dishonest and that made me angry but now I'm not so sure if it's really obstinate obtuseness. I'm beginning to think that maybe they really are too stupid to follow intelligent atheist arguments. I don't argue with Baruch any more because he is incoherent, irrelevant and I honestly doubt his sanity. Drew is certainly sane but he doesn't seem to understand intelligent arguments. I hope the above is clear and he will understand now why he is really doing the god of the gaps argument here.

St Truth

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.

QuoteAtheists and theists today do not know the cause of the origin of the universe.

Right which is why I didn't cite the creation of the universe as evidence just the fact it exists.

QuoteSo, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air.

You were handed your head on this very issue are you coming back for more?

You wrote...

QuoteThe burden of proof of the Apollo moon landing is on the party that asserts it happened. The burden is not on anyone else. This is as simple as ABC. Hence the burden of showing that there was a moon-landing rests squarely on the shoulder of the party that asserts it - in this case, it's NASA.

Baloney. The people who claim the USA didn't land on the moon have an equal burden of evidence if they want to sell that notion to the public. Same for people who offensively claim the Holocaust never happened. I know this is gospel truth in atheist culture that negative claims don't bear a burden but its so nonsensical its sad you don't take any time to apply a modicum of skepticism to all the atheists arguments you have regurgitated thus far.

QuoteNASA did discharge the burden by showing clear evidence of the flight and landing. The entire trip to the moon was filmed and the whole world watched it. The entire event is recorded in peer reviewed journals of astronomy. I know all this because my grandparents saw the whole thing on TV. It was that long ago - even before my parents' time. But the evidence was copious and monumental.

Wonderful I'll play the atheist role. Are you so moronic that you believe videos produced by (the very people we accuse of a hoax) were real? How can you be that freaking stupid? Do you deny NASA has a massive budget and could easily recreate the landing in a studio? Yet you're so naive you accept a video made by NASA as evidence. Do you even know what evidence is! If you actually do have some evidence (direct indisputable undeniable incontestable facts) let me know...

Do you ever wonder why there aren't more atheists (considering the preponderance of evidence in favor of the proposition)? I'll give you one clue the absurd notion you have no evidentiary obligation to cite your evidence and make a case in favor of what you believe. You sound like a juvenile baby to constantly whine over and over how a theist has to provide evidence. I made my case on 6 undisputed facts no reference to gaps at all. If you want anyone besides the group of loyal atheists to think you have a case you'll have to try harder than whining and moaning.

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 11:37:36 PM
St Truth

The uncertainty just means neither of us really knows how the universe and our existence came about. The case I made for theism isn't based on what we don't know but what we do know.

I have already shown you why your statement is stupid and unthinking. The fact of the existence of the universe cannot be evidence for God just as thunder cannot be evidence for Thor.

Are you really stupid or are you just dishonest?

You must be the undisputed Moron in AF. Were you born stupid or did you become stupid for God? Read my last post again and use a dictionary if you can't understand what you read. You really need to grow a brain. I mean a real human brain.

I have addressed every stupid point you made and if you can't understand it, then go get a lobotomy. Take your medication and you'll be right as rain.

Quote from: Baruch on September 28, 2017, 06:45:17 PM
So, you are a cunning linguist? ;-))

Old Playboy joke...

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 01:06:59 AM
I have already shown you why your statement is stupid and unthinking. The fact of the existence of the universe cannot be evidence for God just as thunder cannot be evidence for Thor.

I know the game St Truth, demand evidence and reject any. The atheist position can be summed up in one sentence.

Theism is bunk, Drew's a punk. If only that brilliant deduction convinced anyone except fully committed born again atheists you'd have something. 

Quote from: Drew_2017 on October 01, 2017, 08:58:27 AM
I know the game St Truth, demand evidence and reject any. The atheist position can be summed up in one sentence.

Theism is bunk, Drew's a punk. If only that brilliant deduction convinced anyone except fully committed born again atheists you'd have something.

Not just that. You are a liar. You knew you were banned. You circumvented the ban and came back. And you are still spouting inanities and refusing to take on any argument. You just want to preach your stupid God in the hope that there are converts to your filthy religion and insane belief.

You came back despite a ban.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 09:03:16 AM
Not just that. You are a liar. You knew you were banned. You circumvented the ban and came back. And you are still spouting inanities and refusing to take on any argument. You just want to preach your stupid God in the hope that there are converts to your filthy religion and insane belief.

You came back despite a ban.

I'll agree with that.  It doesn't seem like Drew learned anything while banned.  I wouldn't personally say "filthy" religion, but "stupid" sounds about right.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 09:13:36 AM
I'll agree with that.  It doesn't seem like Drew learned anything while banned.  I wouldn't personally say "filthy" religion, but "stupid" sounds about right.

Stupid filthy religion. I'm so glad there is no rule against blasphemy. As Dawkins points out once, blasphemy is a victim-less offence because bloody God, G-d, Allah, Zeus, etc don't exist. Blasphemy is a good exercise. It reminds people that filthy God doesn't exist. Because if pig-like Allah exists, wouldn't he have struck me dead? Or if that monkey YHWH or Yahweh exists, would he not have turned me into a pillar of salt as he supposedly did to Lot's wife? Or if the Holy Fart of the Heavenly Father (aka the Holy Spirit) exists, wouldn't he strike me dead as he supposedly did to two persons for not giving all their money to the church (See Acts 5)? Someone in CF asked me if I had a relationship with Jesus. I wanted to tell her I was not gay and even if I were, I wouldn't choose a freak who died 2000 years ago. I can't have a relationship with his ashes, can I? LOL

Blasphemy is an effective way to put religionists in their places. Sometimes, it's the only cure for their lunacy.

St Truth  - "I'm so glad there is no rule against blasphemy" ... of course, this is an atheist forum.  When I was about 12, my friends thought it was cute to blaspheme too.  You will get over it ;-)  Also glad there is no rule against heresy ... otherwise I couldn't post either.  Heresy is more adult.

St Truth - "So, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air." ... actually the traditional naturalist POV was that the universe was eternal.  This is why, in opposition to an eternal yet natural universe, theist had to move to the creation ex nihilo position.  Of course this predates you by 1500 years, so I am not surprised you didn't remember it ;-)  Originally gods created the universe from something else, they converted Chaos to Cosmos.  Monotheist theologians messed with scripture.  Polytheists don't have this need to oversimplify ;-)  If you count people as demigods, then I am a polytheist.

Fact is, as Drew and the others recognize ... we don't really know the Big Bang very well, not before the 3.5K radiation ... we extrapolate before that, and quantum cosmology attempts, and fails, to extrapolate that all the way back.  We in fact do not know that the observed universe was originated as ex nihilo, we in fact don't know if there is even one universe ... there may be an infinity of them (see Rick & Morty).  This is why any argument, based on cosmology, is lame.  The only fact you can claim is that 3.5K radiation and what observably comes after that.  There is no prior observation, though gravity waves have been attempted to be used to understand the fine structure of that radiation, but in any case, it would be an extrapolation ... hence not real observational science.  Indirectly, the calculated?? abundance of H and He and a little Li ... which have changed in the last 13+ billion years ... as it was at the time of the 3.5K radiation, is suggestive of what happened earlier.  Also particle physics is suggestive of what happened earlier (see Steven Weinberg "The First Three Minutes").  But we really can't say, because an event in the LHC ... is so much quantitatively tinier ... we don't know what would happen if you scaled it up.  Of course scientists aren't skeptical, their livelihood depends on telling governments that what they are doing is uncovering unlimited power ... for governments to use (see Manhattan Project).  So if I knew a water molecule well, and I know a person is 70% water, I can deduce what a human is like?

BBC gives us the holy writ of cosmologists, except it is bunk.  With holy music ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6VmOiGeykU

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 10:25:01 AM

BBC gives us the holy writ of cosmologists, except it is bunk.  With holy music ...

Baruch, I am surprised.  You know the laws of debate better than that.  The original claim must be supported or it fails.

In this case, the original claim is that a deity created the universe.  You can't win the debate by claiming the other side hasn't proven the argument.  Science is by nature, provisional according to the available facts.  It makes no claim to The Truth.  It is merely "here is what we think, so far".

Religion is a statement of The Truth saying that a deity of some sort created the universe.  Prove it or get out of town man...

You (of all people) know what I mean here.  The burden of proof lays on the original proponent.

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 10:25:01 AM
St Truth  - "I'm so glad there is no rule against blasphemy" ... of course, this is an atheist forum.  When I was about 12, my friends thought it was cute to blaspheme too.  You will get over it ;-)  Also glad there is no rule against heresy ... otherwise I couldn't post either.  Heresy is more adult.

Theist's Trick No. 1: Denigrate your opponent and make him appear insignificant. That is why you mentioned 12 year olds. You thought I would be hopping mad. No, I'm not angry. I just went to the toilet and excreted YHWH into the toilet bowl. It depends on my mood. Sometimes, I excrete YHWH and sometimes the Trinity. Sometimes, when I've eaten something really rotten and uncooked, it's Allah that gets purged out. Oh sorry! You guys worship my excrement. I'll flush the toilet more reverentially next time. In case you don't know, YHWH is Yahweh or G-d (the dirty word) - that's the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (what a dumb way of describing himself). In fact he gets dumber when he calls himself 'I am that I am'.

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 10:25:01 AM
St Truth - "So, the onus of proof is on the theist who introduces an entity from thin air." ... actually the traditional naturalist POV was that the universe was eternal.  This is why, in opposition to an eternal yet natural universe, theist had to move to the creation ex nihilo position.  Of course this predates you by 1500 years, so I am not surprised you didn't remember it ;-)  Originally gods created the universe from something else, they converted Chaos to Cosmos.  Monotheist theologians messed with scripture.  Polytheists don't have this need to oversimplify ;-)  If you count people as demigods, then I am a polytheist.

Fact is, as Drew and the others recognize ... we don't really know the Big Bang very well, not before the 3.5K radiation ... we extrapolate before that, and quantum cosmology attempts, and fails, to extrapolate that all the way back.  We in fact do not know that the observed universe was originated as ex nihilo, we in fact don't know if there is even one universe ... there may be an infinity of them (see Rick & Morty).  This is why any argument, based on cosmology, is lame.  The only fact you can claim is that 3.5K radiation and what observably comes after that.  There is no prior observation, though gravity waves have been attempted to be used to understand the fine structure of that radiation, but in any case, it would be an extrapolation ... hence not real observational science.  Indirectly, the calculated?? abundance of H and He and a little Li ... which have changed in the last 13+ billion years ... as it was at the time of the 3.5K radiation, is suggestive of what happened earlier.  Also particle physics is suggestive of what happened earlier (see Steven Weinberg "The First Three Minutes").  But we really can't say, because an event in the LHC ... is so much quantitatively tinier ... we don't know what would happen if you scaled it up.  Of course scientists aren't skeptical, their livelihood depends on telling governments that what they are doing is uncovering unlimited power ... for governments to use (see Manhattan Project).  So if I knew a water molecule well, and I know a person is 70% water, I can deduce what a human is like?

Drew (the guy who was banned but who lied in the name of the Holy Spirit aka the Holy Flatulence of the Fat Father and jesus) actually wrote in one post that thunder is the evidence for Thor. He then said the universe is the evidence for God. As I have explained, this is nothing more than the God of the gaps argument. Drew is rubbing lubricant on his God and trying to penetrate God into the gaps in the knowledge of science. But it won't work. His limp God just can't get into the gaps. Boy! I'm quite witty in my blasphemy.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Theist's Trick No. 1: Denigrate your opponent and make him appear insignificant. That is why you mentioned 12 year olds. You thought I would be hopping mad. No, I'm not angry. I just went to the toilet and excreted YHWH into the toilet bowl. It depends on my mood. Sometimes, I excrete YHWH and sometimes the Trinity. Sometimes, when I've eaten something really rotten and uncooked, it's Allah that gets purged out. Oh sorry! You guys worship my excrement. I'll flush the toilet more reverentially next time. In case you don't know, YHWH is Yahweh or G-d (the dirty word) - that's the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (what a dumb way of describing himself). In fact he gets dumber when he calls himself 'I am that I am'.

Drew (the guy who was banned but who lied in the name of the Holy Spirit aka the Holy Flatulence of the Fat Father and jesus) actually wrote in one post that thunder is the evidence for Thor. He then said the universe is the evidence for God. As I have explained, this is nothing more than the God of the gaps argument. Drew is rubbing lubricant on his God and trying to penetrate God into the gaps in the knowledge of science. But it won't work. His limp God just can't get into the gaps. Boy! I'm quite witty in my blasphemy.

And usually erudite and clever for a 16 year old...  (*coff, coff*)

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 10:47:46 AM
Baruch, I am surprised.  You know the laws of debate better than that.  The original claim must be supported or it fails.

In this case, the original claim is that a deity created the universe.  You can't win the debate by claiming the other side hasn't proven the argument.  Science is by nature, provisional according to the available facts.  It makes no claim to The Truth.  It is merely "here is what we think, so far".

Religion is a statement of The Truth saying that a deity of some sort created the universe.  Prove it or get out of town man...

You (of all people) know what I mean here.  The burden of proof lays on the original proponent.

Robert's Rule Of Order die when we draw switchblades.  This is West Side Story, not HS Student Council.  Unfortunately, as many proponents don't get what they propose ... theist or atheist ... we get lost in the weeds of ignorance.  Scientism takes science as revealed truth ala Pythagoras/Plato ... it isn't about actual modern science at all, but about "I am a Brite and you are a Dim" penis size comparisons.  Those geeks, always a male teen inside.  And as I pointed out elsewhere not 1/10 religious people know what prayer is all about.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 11:23:28 AM
Theist's Trick No. 1: Denigrate your opponent and make him appear insignificant.
...

The actual evidence (i.e., your posts on this forum) reveals you "[d]enigrate your opponent and (attempt to) make him appear insignificant."  Does that make you a theist who utilizes "Theist's Trick No. 1", at least according to you?

Quote from: sdelsolray on October 01, 2017, 05:51:07 PM
The actual evidence (i.e., your posts on this forum) reveals you "[d]enigrate your opponent and (attempt to) make him appear insignificant."  Does that make you a theist who utilizes "Theist's Trick No. 1", at least according to you?

Calling someone who will be 16 in a few more months a 12-year-old is denigrating him. Calling a religious evidence -less thoughtless imbecile crackpot a theistic loony is not denigration. It's description.

Quote from: St Truth on October 02, 2017, 12:37:21 AM
Calling someone who will be 16 in a few more months a 12-year-old is denigrating him. Calling a religious evidence -less thoughtless imbecile crackpot a theistic loony is not denigration. It's description.

I was speaking of myself, not you.  You are way too sensitive.  If I called you a 25 year old, pretending to be 15 ... would you feel false pride?  But yes, you are what you are, and only time will let you escape your current situation, hopefully to a better mental space.  I remember the time when I popped off to my mother, when I was a teen.  Her right hand swing knocked my smart ass to the floor.  I never did that again, nor did I hold it against her.  Eventually I became a parent, and closed the circle.

Quote from: Baruch on October 02, 2017, 12:46:24 AM
I was speaking of myself, not you.  You are way too sensitive.  If I called you a 25 year old, pretending to be 15 ... would you feel false pride?  But yes, you are what you are, and only time will let you escape your current situation, hopefully to a better mental space.  I remember the time when I popped off to my mother, when I was a teen.  Her right hand swing knocked my smart ass to the floor.  I never did that again, nor did I hold it against her.  Eventually I became a parent, and closed the circle.

I am irritated when people who fancy themselves old start reminiscing about their early childhood. Let's face it - this is the internet. Baruch could be 14 pretending to be 60. In CF, I registered my date of birth as 17 December 1999. Actually, I didn't lie. But when I applied for registration last year, the system returned an error message whenever I typed my correct year of birth. I realised that the closest year they accepted was 1999. I later discovered that CF did not accept people below 16.

But a lot of the imbeciles in CF thought I was much older. One of them was certain that I was VERY old. He gave as 'evidence' the fact that I once signed of as 'I remain, Sir, the one and only....  St Truth'. He said the style 'I remain, Sir...' was a very old style and no teenager would write that way. He went on to opine further that my vocabulary evidenced an advanced intelligence and the syntax of my sentences was what no teenager could construct. He then explained that he was a High School teacher and he knew everything about teenagers. I had such a good time laughing. Obviously his American High School consisted of teenagers who were dunderheads who could only do sex and drugs. You know how it's like in the US? He wanted me banned for misrepresenting my age. It's very hard for me to respect these morons in CF. They are so stupid they don't know what evidence means. It's just like that moron Drew who keeps saying that the universe is evidence of God's existence. These people don't understand evidence. True, the style I adopted when I signed off is what you read in the letters written in the novels of Jane Austen and Dickens but that's no evidence that I am a contemporary of Dickens!!! They probably measured my maturity with their own stupidity and wow, I'm incredibly brilliant and so I must be as old as Dickens. It's the same in AF - the theists are all dumb fools.  I think theism appeals to idiots and the intelligent folks who accept theism have no choice but to tell their brains to take a hike every time they go on their knees to their dumb God or G-d or YHWH or Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever dumb names they can come up with for their imaginary pig. If you can delude yourself into believing such utter rubbish, you can no longer be rational. That explains why CF is chock-full of people whose intelligence is no higher than that of a gibbon which had a severe concussion at birth.

And I say all this in truth for I am...

St Truth

Your early skepticism is admirable, but don't let it turn into paranoia ;-(

Heh.  Has anyone else noticed that the more OP blathers on, the higher the '99.99999%' vote goes?  :D

Quote from: trdsf on October 02, 2017, 10:48:25 AM
Heh.  Has anyone else noticed that the more OP blathers on, the higher the '99.99999%' vote goes?  :D

If there was a god, he never would have created someone as annoying as Drew.

Quote from: trdsf on October 02, 2017, 10:48:25 AM
Heh.  Has anyone else noticed that the more OP blathers on, the higher the '99.99999%' vote goes?  :D

Well, Drew won't be blathering any longer in this thread.  He was sent to Purgatory and is now limited to posting there.

Quote from: sdelsolray on October 02, 2017, 11:12:18 AM
Well, Drew won't be blathering any longer in this thread.  He was sent to Purgatory and is now limited to posting there.

That's wonderful. It's very hard to keep up with him. He talks garbage in one thread and just when you think you've addressed his garbage, he ignores what you say and he's gone to another thread to pour more garbage. Keeping him in one place is great. Is Purgatory the "Enter the Darkness' forum? A forum for brain-damaged teens, that's what the description says.

I'm sure he won't post there. He'll just start another sock puppet. But it's easy to spot him. I know what he will say and it's easy to spot him when he comes back. He simply regurgitates the vomit of past Christian apologists.

Quote from: St Truth on October 02, 2017, 11:23:48 AM
That's wonderful. It's very hard to keep up with him. He talks garbage in one thread and just when you think you've addressed his garbage, he ignores what you say and he's gone to another thread to pour more garbage. Keeping him in one place is great. Is Purgatory the "Enter the Darkness' forum? A forum for brain-damaged teens, that's what the description says.

I'm sure he won't post there. He'll just start another sock puppet. But it's easy to spot him. I know what he will say and it's easy to spot him when he comes back. He simply regurgitates the vomit of past Christian apologists.

The Purgatory subform is only visible to members who request it, i.e., it is invisible otherwise.  PM a moderator and he/she will make it visible for you.

Quote from: sdelsolray on October 02, 2017, 11:12:18 AM
Well, Drew won't be blathering any longer in this thread.  He was sent to Purgatory and is now limited to posting there.

I am against the decision to move him to the purgatory subforum.


I really enjoy dismantling his flawed thinking.

Quote from: Simon Moon on October 02, 2017, 06:11:31 PM

I am against the decision to move him to the purgatory subforum.


I really enjoy dismantling his flawed thinking.

Drew's flawed thinking has already been deconstructed and dismantled, more than once, including many excellent posts from you.  Is doing that again necessary?

But the Purgatory ban will be a test for Drew.  If his ego demands him to proselytize his phony "philosophical theism" he will continue in the Purgatory subform (just like Randy Carson did when he was sent to Purgatory).  On the other hand, if he is angry, shamed or embarrassed enough, he likely will not post there....unless he is or becomes a nutter.  If he is a nutter, then all bets are off.

Quote from: St Truth on October 02, 2017, 12:37:21 AM
Calling someone who will be 16 in a few more months a 12-year-old is denigrating him. Calling a religious evidence -less thoughtless imbecile crackpot a theistic loony is not denigration. It's description.

Sure thing, Sparky.  I'll bet you say that to all who ask.

Quote from: Simon Moon on October 02, 2017, 06:11:31 PM

I am against the decision to move him to the purgatory subforum.


I really enjoy dismantling his flawed thinking.

But no amount of reason and excellent posts that expose the flaws of Drew's arguments can have any effect on him. All he will do is to ignore what you have said and repeat his nonsense ad nauseam. And he will do that on multiple threads. It gets very sickening after a while. That's because Drew has an agenda. He doesn't care how flawed his arguments are or how good your responses are. All he wants is for his garbage to influence some readers. That is what preachers do. Argue as much as you want, the preacher will just tenaciously preach his garbage repeatedly in the hope of getting some converts or, as they put it in Christian jargon, the seeds are sown anyway.

I'm sure Drew will return in a different sock puppet account.

Quote from: St Truth on October 03, 2017, 11:01:27 AM
But no amount of reason and excellent posts that expose the flaws of Drew's arguments can have any effect on him. All he will do is to ignore what you have said and repeat his nonsense ad nauseam. And he will do that on multiple threads. It gets very sickening after a while. That's because Drew has an agenda. He doesn't care how flawed his arguments are or how good your responses are. All he wants is for his garbage to influence some readers. That is what preachers do. Argue as much as you want, the preacher will just tenaciously preach his garbage repeatedly in the hope of getting some converts or, as they put it in Christian jargon, the seeds are sown anyway.

I'm sure Drew will return in a different sock puppet account.

He called you out for delusion already.  Better dive into Purgatory to set him straight, young Candide ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2017, 01:32:35 PM
He called you out for delusion already.  Better dive into Purgatory to set him straight, young Candide ;-)

"Calling someone out" is one thing, but doing so using demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic, is another.

I have not seen any signs that Drew is capable of any of the above.

Please show the post where Drew called out St Truth, or anyone else, using the above criteria.

Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2017, 01:32:35 PM
He called you out for delusion already.  Better dive into Purgatory to set him straight, young Candide ;-)

You are just a dishonest theist who talks insane rubbish. You act like a jester on AF because if you speak seriously, you know only too well that you too would be sent to purgatory where the likes of you belong. So, go ahead and be a clown since that's the only way for an irrational old theist like you to survive. But please don't tell such an outrageous lie as to say that the imbecile Drew could call me out for delusion. Even if your YHWH or Yahweh or G-d (abbreviated because it's a dirty word) who has to resort to masturbating his filthy old dick because the narcissistic bugger hasn't been praised enough lately and it's been a long time since YHWH or Edonai (or whatever his filthy cursed name is) last had a woman in the person of Busted Mary (Virgin my foot!) does not teach you honesty, at least leave me out of your lies.

I find it offensive of anyone to say that a moron could call me out for delusion. Of course if you mean the moron told a lie about me, then you should make that clear.

So far, Drew the Idiot has ignored every argument in my post and all he has done is to continue preaching his dumb God and coating God with KY Gel in order for him to be inserted in the gaps of human knowledge. Drew himself said that thunder is evidence for Thor and then he stupidly goes on to say in his second statement that the universe is evidence for God. Stupid Drew did not realise that he has shot himself in the foot with his first statement.

Anyway, I have gone to Purgatory to preach to Drew. My first SERMON is 'A theological examination of the nature and property of the Holy Spirit'. 

Quote from: St Truth on October 03, 2017, 08:31:56 PM
Anyway, I have gone to Purgatory to preach to Drew. My first SERMON is 'A theological examination of the nature and property of the Holy Spirit'.

I hear the Church in Rome hasn't elected you yet, you might want to wait for the Vatican to catch up to you ;-)

Quote from: Simon Moon on October 03, 2017, 01:43:53 PM

"Calling someone out" is one thing, but doing so using demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic, is another.

I have not seen any signs that Drew is capable of any of the above.

Please show the post where Drew called out St Truth, or anyone else, using the above criteria.

Guys spoiling for a fight at the Skeptics Club?  Calling someone out .. involves at least insults, if not knives.  Has noting to do with Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens, but never dues St Truth.  He should be named St Dogmatism.

Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2017, 08:56:44 PM
I hear the Church in Rome hasn't elected you yet, you might want to wait for the Vatican to catch up to you ;-)

If Vatican catches up with me, they probably want to molest me before I turn 16. Haven't you read the latest Encyclical to all priests? - they are encouraged to go for boys under 16.

I just copied and pasted from the Vatican website:

To all priests of the Church of Rome:

I hereby charge and adjure you as priests to the faithful to limit all your sexual excesses to boys below 16. The latest Vatican research shows that they are less likely to report you to the authorities. Some priests have been violently socked in the head when they attempted to molest older boys. Santa Maria!!! Use your God-given brains.

The blessings of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Fart be upon us as we seek to protect paedophile priests from prosecution.

I pronounce this ex cathedra as I sit on St Peter's Throne.

Pope Francis
The Holy See

Sometimes satire crosses a line into libel ... I think you crossed that line ;-(

It is possible that some Vatican people think that, but I don't think they put it up for the public to read on their website.

Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2017, 09:21:10 PM
Sometimes satire crosses a line into libel ... I think you crossed that line ;-(

It is possible that some Vatican people think that, but I don't think they put it up for the public to read on their website.

You don't know the law. For it to be libel, it must not be openly false. So, if I say you are a convict, that is a libel. But if I say you are a Pope who loves paedophile sex, that is not libellous. Because anyone reading it will know it's not true.

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 03:27:22 PM
Robert's Rule Of Order die when we draw switchblades.  This is West Side Story,

West Side Story was never about atheism vs theism.  It isn't about competing immigration populations in poverty, the love of 2 people across the cultural lines, nor about respecting them after death. 

Quote from: Cavebear on October 04, 2017, 01:43:56 AM
West Side Story was never about atheism vs theism.  It isn't about competing immigration populations in poverty, the love of 2 people across the cultural lines, nor about respecting them after death.

And you are never about the subject.

Quote from: Baruch on October 04, 2017, 09:22:35 PM
And you are never about the subject.

You mentioned West Side Story.  I merely referred to your reference to it.  Don't blame the responder for replying to your own references.