Once again, you’re in no position to lecture anyone on discoursive conduct.
2 Likes
-
So what memories are you claiming you were born with?
-
What is your OBJECTIVE criteria for disbelieving all the deities I do, except for one.
-
Give at least one of the “many good examples” you claimed there are for believing the origin of the gospels was supernatural magic?
-
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
-
Explain in detail with objective evidence how you believe your deity used magic to create everything.
There are of course innumerably more questions you’ve dodged, but this will do to be going on to highlight your relentless dishonesty.
1 Like
So lets list these logical fallacies @Sherlock-Holmes has used shall we, since he seems to think he can just ignore them.
So in his first post he offers a fairly obvious argument from personal incredulity, note no supporting evidence just a personal subjective belief something cannot be otherwise. It is also a circular reasoning fallacy, as he assumes his conclusions in his premise, note the claim for evidence is meaningless, one could say the universe is evidence for an intelligent leprechaun and his claim would lose nothing.
A false dichotomy fallacy…and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Answered above.
Using endless logical fallacies? Perhaps rational is another word he’s struggling with?
Argument from personal anecdote fallacy. Note again not one shred of objective evidence, and he doesn’t even define free will properly, since will & instent are not the same as free will. Does a snail have free will, it seems to have intent?
Lets pause a moment and wonder what his explanation for the existence of a deity is, since he’s offered nothing to explain its existence beyond subjective begging the question fallacies.
Another false dichotomy fallacy, and a an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it’s also clear evidence he doesn’t know what objective means. Not having a material explanation or one being impossible is not objective evidence for a deity, why on earth would anything think it was? It’s not even a rational argument.
This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and though it’s not immediately clear nearly every claim he is positing his chosen superstition as an answer, is based on not have (according to his subjective opinion) an alternative explanation, which is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Well quite.
In his third post? Already handwaving the rational objections away, it was a bad sign from the very start.
So one of the three points he decided he wanted to respond to was to repeat his previous subjective beliefs, and to a request for objective evidence, and after I’d already explained why it was not objective evidence for a deity.
So now he is answering with a false dichotomy fallacy, limiting us to his straw man of a material explanation or inexplicable magic from a deity, how about we don’t know, there’s a third alternative. It also implies not having an alternative explanation to his god claim lends it credence, how many times must it be explained that this argument is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Pure assumption, and again not evidence for a deity or anything supernatural. Simply the same false dichotomy fallacy, and the same implied argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy he keeps repeating over and over.
Straw man fallacy, as I made no such argument, he is building to another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, either we present an alternative or goddidit. There is nothing circular about
I’m highlighting this as it has finally become clear he doesn’t know what the word belief means. I believe the world is not flat, but that belief is also an irrefutable fact, beliefs can range from entirely subjective or objective facts.
We don’t need a theory, they’re man made, we can produce detailed objective evidence for their creation. Laws are descriptive not proscriptive, they merely explain natural phenomena. he is positing an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, where he is implying not being able to explain (with a theory) the existence of the natural phenomena those man mad laws explain, is evidence for a deity, this is irrational argument.
Appeal to authority fallacy, Lennox may be a credentialed mathematician but his subjective religious beliefs can’t ride on that, and he has made plenty of irrational claims about his beliefs, I highlighted one just yesterday.
So here is told he is using a false dichotomy, and he waves it away doubling down with an argument ad ignorantiam fallacy, if we can’t explain it materialistically we must use his assumption of magic from a deity, no, that is demonstrably irrational, and again we can simply not know. He certainly hasn’t “proved” there cannot be a materialistic cause either, nowhere near, unless he has evidence for what was present and possible before the big bang that the entire scientific world is unaware of. Thus we are not limited to two choices, and we do not have to have an alternative to disbelieve his claim it was an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, again, and it’s a subjective claim, since he has no more insight into what existed and was possible prior to the big bang than anyone else, despite his hubris.
That’s enough for now before the site crashes again I think we’re just 4 or five posts in as well.
3 Likes
I disagree.
Theists like Kent Hovind (among many, many others) are trying to get Creationism taught in schools.
Also, I often mention the Brescia church explosion as an example of a conflict between science and theology. Lightning was believed to be from God, so the church should be the safest place to store all the gunpowder.
Almost 90 metric tons of it.
When the church was hit by lightning, the explosion killed about 2,000 people and destroyed about 15% of the town.
Lightning rods had been invented by Benjamin Franklin a few decades before, and he had been pushing the clergy to use lightning rods on church steeples (often the highest point in town) to protect the bell ringers. His ideas were rejected, as they were heretical.
This is an example of how invoking God to understand the world accomplishes nothing . . . and may even be disasterous.
Please see below:
Rejecting evolution and/or Big Bang cosmology in favor of God is like rejecting lightning rods on church steeples.
3 Likes
Well for starters we don’t observe a shred of objective evidence for this claim, which itself has no more explanatory powers than claiming an invisible powerful wizard done it guv.
1 Like
Of course, he keeps ignoring the fact that cosmological physicists are seeking to achieve what he blindly asserts is impossible, namely, demonstrate that the observable universe in its current form is indeed the product of testable natural processes, and have a number of models ready to be tested in this vein.
But of course, he duplicitously retorts with whingeing and bleating if you simply mention those models, dismissing them summarily on the specious grounds that you didn’t present any details. Followed in short order by whingeing and bleating about “conciseness” if you present any of those models in detail as requested.
His entire approach to discourse is characterised by rampant mendacity.
4 Likes
I don’t know why you ask such questions, you don’t share my premises so of course you won’t accept the conclusions that I reach. You and I have different starting points from which we build our worldview, it is from that that our differences develop.
-
You don’t seem to acknowledge that there are questions about reality that cannot have scientific answers, I do acknowledge that though.
-
You don’t seem to acknowledge that a thing cannot serve as its own explanation.
-
You don’t seem to grasp exactly what an “explanation” is, epistemologically.
The vast bulk of the things I’ve said across several threads in this forum would not raise an eyebrow in a philosophy class or discussion, would not elicit personal attacks and name calling. These are age old questions and have little to do with science, this is the hard part for you I think, trying to reason about reality without using science as your crutch.
I read your whole post and it was just a string of duplicitous straw man fallacies, and vapid handwaving, that had no relevance whatsoever to my questions about your claims, so I will ask again:
What technique did you employ to determine this?
1 Like
Kent Hovind isn’t someone I take very seriously or pay much attention to. I think it’s a huge mistake in the US to not teach philosophy in schools as they do in Europe, then ideas like “creationism” can be presented as just that, ideas and the suitably equipped student can accept it or reject by choice by use of their own reasoning.
That environment is what allowed the scientific revolution to blossom, a culture where ideas were evaluated on their own merits rather than being censored by some authority in order to further some group’s agenda.
Yes, I’m not surprised, the US was and still is plagued by puritanism we see this evident in the bizarre evangelical groups with their “prosperity gospel” and baseless claims of healing and even resurrecting (curiously centered inside Africa).
But I don’t think the lightning rod story is confined to religion, it’s much broader because the real issue is the suppression of ideas that are not valued by some power wielding group.
For these kinds of reasons I think some mention of creationism has a place in schools, at an abstract level anyway, a philosophical level, let the educated student decide what to believe using reasoning, don’t tell them what to believe.
1 Like
- So what memories are you claiming you were born with?
- What is your OBJECTIVE criteria for disbelieving all the deities I do, except for one.
- Give at least one of the “many good examples” you claimed there are for believing the origin of the gospels was supernatural magic?
- What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
- Explain in detail with objective evidence how you believe your deity used magic to create everything.
1 Like
Absurd, you’ve missed the thrust of this entire problem. You write:
“…demonstrate that the observable universe in its current form is indeed the product of testable natural processes…”
See? I mean seriously? Right there you must assume there are already existing “natural processes” yet it is the origin of these we are talking about!
A thing cannot serve as its own explanation, until you accept this you’ll be all over the place with this discussion.
1 Like
@Sheldon, don’t forget about this one of his, “ If you disagree with something I said then quote me verbatim and I’m happy to discuss. The reliance on paraphrasing (with the clear intent of misrepresentation) is a tired tactic too often used by anti-theists.”
4 Likes
Ha ha ha ha haha ha … Oh fuck… I laughed so hard, I knocked my crystal ball off the table. Now I will never know if what you have said is true or not. Wait a minute… wasn’t that the starting point?
2 Likes
Regarding your last point. You’ll need to define “magic”, I have no idea what you mean. You ask “how” but that question presupposes mechanism, rules, steps etc. These terms though pertain to the material realm, physics, matter, laws and so on.
The cause of the universe cannot be the universe, cannot be things that are inside that universe, a thing cannot be the explanation for itself.
No, the explanation must be very different, cannot be expressed in terms of deterministic laws or material or fields for these are the things we’re striving to explain.
The explanation is “In the beginning God created…” there is no other way to write it. The existence of the universe is not a result of some mindless mechanistic agencies (because these agencies too must then be explained mechanistically) it is the result of will, intent, desire.
If you are unwilling (as I know you are) to consider that “will” and “intent” are fundamental to our universe then of course we’ll never agree.
- You claimed beliefs can only come from beliefs, it rationally follows that in order for you to form any you must have at one right at the start that you did not form?, so please explain where you think that came from if you didn’t form it yourself, which you assert would have been impossible.
2.) I asked for you criteria, one word is not a criteria, and you have demonstrate no such evidenced. Despite multiple demands to atheists they do so. - Magic in any dictionary, it is synonymous with the word supernatural, so explain in detail one of your “many good examples” that the origins of the gospels was supernatural.
- That’s a subjective claim not objective evidence, explain why you think the universe is “evidence” for any deity?
- Still waiting?
What do youo think caused your deity then?
I asked you to explain how, you’re positing this unevidenced claim as the only plausible explanation for the presence of the universe, then explain it, if you can’t it clearly isn’t an explanation at all.
I am willing to consider ideas that are rational and supported by sufficient objective evidence, but all you keep repeating is the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you started with. Ruling those, or any things out, does not evidence any deity, that is an irrational argument, you don’t get to wave away the principles of logic, then use the word logic as rhetoric as if including it makes your claims rational.
We don’t need to agree, that’s not the purpose of debate. My criteria for belief and disbelief was offered from the very first post you offered. I make a habit of doing so when theists come here, for clarity and for open honest debate. I am still asking you to explain your criteria for disbelieving in any deities, and after relentlessly telling atheists there’s no point offering your “evidence” for a deity, as they can’t understand what is evidence, your one word answer of evidence, speaks for itself. I wonder do you even see how ridiculous an answer that was in light of your previous assertions? Or are you simply trolling?
1 Like
Yes indeed, though even I tire of pointing out the hypocrisy, but I’ll give it a jog at some point. Just as when he evaded questions and insisted no one is obliged to answer any questions, then lied that I hadn’t answered one of his and kept repeating it. he did the same to @Calilasseia as well. I’ve not forgotten.
2 Likes
Again in your eagerness to dismiss something you do not comprehend, you completely miss the point.
The point is that we must be prepared to accept an explanation that is not mechanistic, not expressible in terms of laws and mathematics. If you confine yourself to only regarding mechanistic explanations as having merit then you are stuck because one cannot mechanistically explain the presence of mechanism.
Do you understand now? is none of this sinking in?
Bumping this…
2 Likes