Author Topic: Proofs of God  (Read 209 times)

Offline SGOS

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2017, 12:43:43 PM »
And shifting the burden of proof.
Yeah, that's what I meant about theist logic taking bits of fallacies and mixing them together. 

Remember Randy?  This was a foundation of much of his arguing.  He even copied and pasted some nonsense about one bit of evidence (one fallacy) may not be proof of God, but several bits of evidence (many fallacies combined) may very well prove his existence.  In his defense, the stuff in parenthesis were not part of his quote.  None-the-less, each bit of evidence he presented contained a fallacy, and sometimes even a truth, but none proved existence.

Offline trdsf

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2017, 01:38:51 PM »
Yeah, that's what I meant about theist logic taking bits of fallacies and mixing them together. 

Remember Randy?  This was a foundation of much of his arguing.  He even copied and pasted some nonsense about one bit of evidence (one fallacy) may not be proof of God, but several bits of evidence (many fallacies combined) may very well prove his existence.  In his defense, the stuff in parenthesis were not part of his quote.  None-the-less, each bit of evidence he presented contained a fallacy, and sometimes even a truth, but none proved existence.
Yeah, you have to waste a lot of time untangling the thicket of logical errors before you can even get to the meat of the argument, much of the time.  And there's a fair amount of overlap -- a statement will often combine elements of arguments from ignorance and incredulity and a straw man.

I don't recall Randy particularly -- I have enough trouble remembering useful things anymore, much less pointless ones.  ;)
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2017, 01:42:24 PM »
So he reckons his god is the big bang?    Either that or it's a total hash of the ontological argument.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2017, 02:01:53 PM »
I wasn't even going to watch the video, but saw that it was pretty short, so I did. I can't say I got much out of it, just a brief rehashing of the Kalam cosmological argument, which is a good argument for those who know very little, but for those of us who have a bit more learning, it isn't convincing - certainly nowhere near "proof."

This "cause" that was supposed to have begun the universe is completely undefined, and there's no reason to think it was God that was the cause. According to QM causality is an emergent quality in the universe, on submicroscopic scales there is no causality.

I think the most common god "argument" I've seen is probably that, since I can't prove there is no God, then the believer is justified in their belief, or something to that effect.
God Not Found
“Money supplants skill; it's possession allows us to become happily stupid.”
Bill McKibben, The Age of Missing Information

Offline SGOS

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2017, 02:24:50 PM »
I don't recall Randy particularly -- I have enough trouble remembering useful things anymore, much less pointless ones.  ;)
I won't forget him, because he used to start with some reasonable sounding bait, and draw me in.  The bait was usually something like a directive to contemplate the possibility of something, which would later be referred back to as having been established as fact.  He would continue on with ,"therefore, if follows that...".  Then I would find myself supposedly in logical agreement with him and have to read backwards to find something I had only theoretically agreed to consider for the moment.  He did that enough times that he drove me a little nuts.

Theists often hide their reasoning in long pages of text, making it difficult to sort through and pinpoint the errors where the argument fails.  Often times they start with areas of agreement followed by blather where the reader will lose track, and then the presentation will end with a flourish of unwarranted conclusions induced by a mountain of grammatically correct sleep inducing drowse.  Randy had mastered the technique.  At most, he would capture my attention, but his arguments always failed in the end, because as you observed, they were things that were pointless.

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2017, 02:38:45 PM »
It may have been Randy who would say "I believe" thus and such, "and that proves" thus and such else - as if his belief could prove anything at all.

I'll give him credit though - he was consistent. But we know what Baruch thinks about consistency...
God Not Found
“Money supplants skill; it's possession allows us to become happily stupid.”
Bill McKibben, The Age of Missing Information

Offline trdsf

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2017, 03:37:05 PM »
I won't forget him, because he used to start with some reasonable sounding bait, and draw me in.  The bait was usually something like a directive to contemplate the possibility of something, which would later be referred back to as having been established as fact.  He would continue on with ,"therefore, if follows that...".  Then I would find myself supposedly in logical agreement with him and have to read backwards to find something I had only theoretically agreed to consider for the moment.  He did that enough times that he drove me a little nuts.

Oh, I think I remember him, yeah.  Fond of that kind of bait and switch, mistaking premises for conclusions.

Theists often hide their reasoning in long pages of text, making it difficult to sort through and pinpoint the errors where the argument fails.  Often times they start with areas of agreement followed by blather where the reader will lose track, and then the presentation will end with a flourish of unwarranted conclusions induced by a mountain of grammatically correct sleep inducing drowse.  Randy had mastered the technique.  At most, he would capture my attention, but his arguments always failed in the end, because as you observed, they were things that were pointless.

Colloquially, the "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" gambit.  :)
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin and Hobbes
"I thought I committed regicide today, but I committed deicide!" -- Sadie Doyle, Beyond Belief

Offline Baruch

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2017, 11:58:01 PM »
It may have been Randy who would say "I believe" thus and such, "and that proves" thus and such else - as if his belief could prove anything at all.

I'll give him credit though - he was consistent. But we know what Baruch thinks about consistency...

With humans ... consistently wrong ;-)

"on submicroscopic scales there is no causality" ... Buddhism of Physics ... not Tao of Physics ;-)  Nobody exists, not even the Buddha.
שלום

Online Cavebear

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2017, 04:46:49 AM »
The weak arguments from religious newbies never interests me, but I suspect the most common argument FOR religion is "I believe, so THERE, PFFFT").

Followed by "I don't wanna go to Hell".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2017, 05:52:52 PM »
With humans ... consistently wrong ;-)

"on submicroscopic scales there is no causality" ... Buddhism of Physics ... not Tao of Physics ;-)  Nobody exists, not even the Buddha.
The universe is pure number, nothing else - at least according to Max Tegmark, and I think that's pretty close to the truth.
God Not Found
“Money supplants skill; it's possession allows us to become happily stupid.”
Bill McKibben, The Age of Missing Information

Offline Baruch

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2017, 06:01:23 PM »
The universe is pure number, nothing else - at least according to Max Tegmark, and I think that's pretty close to the truth.

Pythagoras believed in reincarnation.  He was a pain in the ass and his opponents killed him (or exiled him, your folk story choice).  He was messing with politics in Samos and in Croton ... with his New Age Freemasonry and opposition to beans.  If Max Tegmark is like him, it may be necessary to at least exile him.  Generally speaking, in my work, the bean counters are the enemy ;-)
שלום

Online Cavebear

Re: Proofs of God
« Reply #26 on: Today at 01:54:06 AM »
The universe is pure number, nothing else - at least according to Max Tegmark, and I think that's pretty close to the truth.

To the extent that the universe is particles and quanta, you may be right.  I think life is all chemistry, and perhaps chemistry is trying to figure out the particles and quanta that construct us.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!  b 1950