I agree, one that has objective reality, and one that does not. So one we know is objectively possible, and one (any extant deity) we do not know is objectively possible.
No it doesn’t, it evidences it, and only within the temporal universe, you are simply assuming it would apply at all, let alone in the same way before the big bang, and again if you are going to infer cause and effect, then you have to use a special pleading fallacy to imagine the cause wasn’t a natural phenomenon, since that is what we evidence, every single time we understand causes.
You are cherry picking, and making unevidenced sweeping assumptions. To add a deity you can’t objectively evidence is even possible, or explain the origins of, using supernatural magic you cannot explain at all.
It is irrational, by definition, since it is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Sigh, because we know for an objective fact it exists, ipso facto we know it its existence is possible, unlike deities and magic. Just how many times does this need to be explained?
Nonsense, and religious faith as has been explained exhaustively differs from the common definition of the word faith, so this is doubly disingenuous.
You overuse the term “objectively” Sheldon. It’s as if you regard it as a sharp knife that you can bring to the fight from time to time, get a quick stab into the torso as it were - “Take that to the belly you dumb theist, that’ll teach you, you and your lack of objectivity”.
But you really are overdoing it. You can only experience your own experiences you know, everything you do is rooted in that truth, life unfortunately for you really is subjective, your experiences are yours alone.
Is the many worlds interpretation objective reality? Yes for some it is but for others it isn’t.
Since all of science rests upon quantum physics, all of science rests upon this subjective interpretation of what reality really is.
So please stop using “objective reality” as some attempt to legitimize your arguments when you have no idea what it is, how to distinguish it from alternatives or what it even means.
Sure, I’m sure you can trawl the web and find a definition that suits you, just as atheists do for the term “atheism”.
It is true that the term “faith” is used much more in theology, the term is used more in theology than say “trust”. But it doesn’t follow from that that the word has a purely theological meaning.
I have trust that God created the universe you have trust that it (tries to keep a straight face) created itself, I don’t know why so many supposedly educated people these days can’t see the hilarity of that latter belief.
I’ve tried over and over to explain but you can’t get it, you just don’t understand this subject well enough to understand what I’m saying to you.
If you think it’s OK to call me a liar may I call you an imbecile? do the rules allow that or are only atheists permitted to make uncivil posts over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?
I’d likely be banned for six months if I posted as you do, it ain’t fair, really it ain’t.
On the contrary, you made two contradictory claims:
You also lied, asserting you had not made the first claim here:
That’s a lie, all you’d need to do is explain how you know we must have an initial belief before we can develop new beliefs, when you admit you don’t know where that initial belief comes from. That initial belief would be a counterexample that destroys your assertion, since you admit you don’t know where it comes from. All the rest is smoke and mirrors from you.
I presented an irrefutable lie you’d told.
There it is again for everyone to see. Irrational Ad hominem doesn’t frighten me, though it’s hard not to see hurling ad hominem to avoid addressing your lie as anything but cowardly.
Another lie…though you may want to delete that ad hominem. It’s pretty dishonest and cowardly to try and hide it behind a faux question as well.
I’m afraid you and I are done, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to discuss any subject with you, I won’t be responding to any posts you make in any thread.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
Another lie, I have only ever used the dictionary definition.
Atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I also offered that with a link more than once, and explained that this definition is inclusive of all atheists, but the loaded one you want to use that does not reflect common usage is not. So I guess it’s just easier for you to lie like this than honestly address those facts.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
I could care less since you can demonstrate not one shred of objective evidence to support the claim, nor any rational argument a deity or anything supernatural is even possible.
That blatant straw man fallacy is another lie, it’s bizarre you turn into such a crybaby when your lies are pointed out, but keep lying so blatantly, quote a single post of mine ever making that claim or admit you just told a brazen lie?
It’s not a belief I hold, nor have I ever seen any atheist here claim to, but I fail to see how it is any less hilarious an assertion, than claiming an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition did it using inexplicable magic.
FYI we know the universe exists and is therefore possible, so that’s a reason it creating itself from a previous as yet understood form is demonstrably less hilarious than claiming an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition did it using inexplicable magic.
Yes, you do seem to be painting yourself into a corner with your duplicity, if you think this excuse will justify hiding from me exposing that crack on. You’re the one lying to me and about me though, and hurling ad hominem, but if you want to flounce out in a sulk be my guest. I will carry on exposing your irrational and unevidenced claims, and duplicity.
And you felt obliged to respond to say this, yet again. You may post as you are minded to, as will I, and I can go on exposing your unevidenced irrational and mendacious posts without any feedback.
I was just asking, bro. Because if you said no, then we could all mark your entire argument as bullshit seeing as you don’t seem to come off like you know what you’re talking about. It would seem you evaded my question for that purpose alone. You are here trying to sell something to us after all. You are a Theist. You being the salesman has a shit argument about his product, that’s all.
Did you not read the Chomsky quote then? Did I say something about physics or science in general that you disagree with? if so what is it that I "don’t know what you’re talking about’? Something you know more about than me perhaps?
Again bizarre duplicity, just utterly bizarre. That’s a connection over just 2 posts and just two sentences, before in a third post @Sherlock-Holmes is pretending there is no connection between him making a claim and someone in the very next posts asking him about that claim.
Why does that matter though, that’s the whole point of my objection to you. The insistence on being “qualified” is irrelevant - that’s what Chomsky explains. So I refuse to answer such questions, they are a distraction and in fact are intended to be so.
One way of discrediting what someone says when one cannot discredit the argument itself is to discredit the person making the argument, that’s often a softer target, that what ad hominem is.
It’s very common in atheist forums and debates a very common strategy.
Now we all know “how you get” when someone implies you’ve strayed from the truth, but that’s a whopper, a porky pie, a howler, your pants have completely burned away, they’ve gone nuclear…you sir lied, as right there. the assertion there are a host of good reasons to believe something, obviously implies it is probably correct, and you have offered nothing to support it, beyond an appeal to authority fallacy, and an argumentum ad populum fallacy, citing the subjective religious beliefs of “most biblical scholars” about claims for magic.
