News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Atheism Poll

Started by Drew_2017, September 09, 2017, 03:39:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Unbeliever

Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem destroyed the book before it was even finished, didn't it?
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

St Truth

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.

Drew_2017

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.   
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Baruch

#378
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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

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.

St Truth

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


Baruch

You have made the nymphs and dryads sad ;-(
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

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. 



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

St Truth

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

Drew_2017

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.   
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Drew_2017

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.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

St Truth

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

Baruch

#387
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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Drew_2017

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.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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

Drew_2017

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...

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Albert Einstein

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