“For a host of reasons I won’t go into here,” is quite a handy turn of phrase to use when making an assertion. It sure demonstrates how adept one is at honest debate.
2 Likes
Not unless I have some idea of what you look for in such evidence, I could present many things and we’d be here all day as you respond “Nah not evidence, Nah that’s not, Nope that ain’t evidence” all day long.
The only way to reasonably avoid that is for you define you’re criteria for interpreting some thing as evidence for God.
I am not convinced that have criteria and therefore I am not convinced that intend to reject whatever is presented.
If you truly believe nothing could possibly serve as evidence for God please say so, if you think some thing might conceivably serve as evidence then say so.
Then why in the wide, wide world of sports are you here arguing some assertions that you can / will not back up? Is it merely masturbatory? Or do you get some kick out of getting the atheists in the zoo to dance? Because, really, if you don’t get that what you’ve done here is to dangle about a piñata filled with your “profound ideas”, moving it away anytime someone swipes at it, you’re either purposefully ignorant or ignorant.
So go ahead and respond to this with yet another in a long line of your evasions. Stick a fork in me, I’m done. It was entertaining for a while but now it’s become tedious and boring.
3 Likes
Well it’s not like he didn’t lay his evasive dishonest stall out right at the start, you have to at least acknowledge that as honesty of a type. Telling us up front, he was making a sweeping claim for supernatural causation and won’t ever attempt to offer a single word to justify it.
Oh I correct myself, he dod offer an appeal to authority fallacy and an argumentum ad populum fallacy pretending the collective subjective beliefs of “most biblical scholars” about the magical origins of the gospels, was somehow down to scholarly rigour. dear oh dear…
Any single one of the “good reasons” you claim there are “to regard the Biblical cannon… as being…supernaturally originated.”
That you have failed to offer even one good reason to convince all those neutral observers you think your spiel is convincing, is rather telling.
2 Likes
If there was evidence for God how would you recognize it as such? Admit it, you have no criteria and can offer no assurance that you modus operandi is anything more than “Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah…”.
1 Like
Straw man, this was about your claim for supernatural causation of the gospel myths. Not about your relentless use of a no true scotsman fallacy about atheists, in order to create a poisoning of the well fallacy, that you think you can hide behind whenever anyone asks you to support your relentlessly bare assertions.
I have it, and have offered it several times, as anyone can attest for themselves, paradoxically when I asked you for yours you hilariously replied with one word “evidence”, would you like a quote as a reminder? Only I am about to put my dinner on, and this is starting to feel like I am kicking a puppy now.
1 Like
Hmm, well you seem to already actually believe them to be myths, so you are not open minded about it, how can I present evidence to a closed mind? what possible reason might there be?
What would convince you they were not myths? any ideas?
1 Like
Oh that is simple: it would need to make a measurable, repeatable change to a probability distribution. Exactly what the believers in magic (including religious people) seem incapable of providing.
As I pointed out earlier, it has been 6 months. I’m hoping to get the rest of that proof from you…You know, the one you said you had…the one you claimed you have sent several times?
5 Likes
All scientific theories are expressed with reference to laws and material quantities.
There can be no scientific theory that does not make reference to laws and material quantities.
Therefore there can be no scientific theory that explains the presence of laws and material quantities.
It’s just a variant of already well understood arguments for God, like the argument from contingency. The universe can’t be contingent on the universe, the laws of physics can’t be contingent on the laws of physics - let me know if any of this seems contentious to you, no room for magic either.
That there exist testable natural processes isn’t an “assumption”, it’s been established conclusively in several million peer reviewed scientific papers. Are you really this obtuse?
Gravity? A testable natural process, that demonstrably exists.
Electricity? A testable natural process that demonstrably exists.
The forces generated by wind and water movement? Testable natural processes that demonstrably exist.
Scientists now postulate that all of the above are ultimately underpinned by the operation of quantum mechanics, whose postulates, wait for it, aren’t “assumptions”, but have been experimentally tested and verified. Such as the postulate that spin-½ particles have to be rotated through 720° in a magnetic field to resume their original orientation instead of 360°. Won’t take the diligent long to find documentation of the experiments that verify that example.
Just because you want magic to be responsible for all of this, wielded by an imaginary cartoon magic man, doesn’t alter any of this in the slightest.
Furthermore, when I covered Steinhardt and Turok’s braneworld collision cosmological model in a detailed post on the subject in the past, I explicitly stated therein that the relevant entities and interactions are postulated to have existed eternally. Indeed, the idea that well-defined entities and interactions have existed eternally, is part of the framework of other cosmological models as well.
Since we have evidence in abundance for material entities and interactions, postulating that a relevant set thereof have always existed isn’t problematic, except for mythology fanboys who want the world to operate on magic, for which we have ZERO evidence. Just as we have ZERO evidence for a cartoon magic man waving its magic todger about and poofing things into existence.
Heard of Occam’s Razor have you?
Do you accept this or not, I can’t get a straight answer from you:
A thing cannot serve as its own explanation.
Just tell me if you agree or not. Do you at least agree that all scientific explanations are exercises in reductionism?
No this is that old poisoning of the well fallacy we talked about you trotting out everytime facts don’t match your bias in favour of your chosen superstition. Best advice I can give you is that you Google the definition of the word myth, then carefully and slowly explain why the gospels are not “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.” Only you have clearly made another idiotic claim that you could have avoided by understanding what words mean before you use them in a claim, assertion or argument.
After trying to engage you in honest discourse I definitely feel your pain, albeit misplaced by you here, but if I might make a suggestion, learning what myth and closed minded means first would definitely help you here, as it’s absurd to accuse someone of bias for describing the gospels as a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Same as every time you’ve asked oddly enough, sufficient objective evidence to support the claims. You’re not a fast learner are you?
3 Likes
Though you can apparently transfer cause and effect to a non- material period of the big bang. You’re definitely getting funnier…albeit unintentionally…
Well understood and irrational, since the unevidenced assumption that we don’t have material / natural explanations for the origins of the universe, does not evidence anything, to claim it does is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You might not care that your speil is irrational, but others do.
Can a deity be contingent on a deity? Isn’t that a special pleading fallacy? If you’re struggling I can help you out?
Well aren’t you sweet, well since you ask it’s where you make those claims, then posit a deity whose origins you can’t explain or evidence at all, without resorting to begging the question fallacies? Then claim it’s an explanation despite being unable to offer any explanation of how this happens beyond the unevidenced claims and the aforementioned begging the question fallacies. Do take your time…
Like your unevidenced claim a deity did it you mean? 
Until you project cause and effect as a prerequisite of scientific methods, outside of the material universe in direct contradictions of your previous assertions that only magic can explain it you mean?
Like so many apologists before you, you seem to want to have your magic cake, and eat it.
What would convince you they were not myths? any ideas? You have no answer only evasion, dismissal.
Read the fucking post you numpty?
Oh dear oh dear, another painful egg on face moment courtesy @Sherlock-Holmes, man oh man…
1 Like
We’re done in this thread.
That is a non-sequitur. I’ll assume you still don’t have what you claimed to have; and what you claimed to have posted several times. I’ll check back in 6 more months to see if you have it then (or admit you don’t have it). If you get it in the meantime (and are willing to actually share it), have someone message me and I’ll unblock you earlier.
2 Likes
Do stop lying.
Oh wait, those who paid attention in class are aware of an elementary principle at work here, which is implied by my above words on the eternal existence of relevant entities.
At some point, our investigations as a species will, if they are not interrupted by duplicitous conduct on the part of the usual suspects, lead us to the point where certain fundamental entities and interactions are simply regarded as a bare, brute fact. We’re not there yet, but that day will eventually arrive.
It may transpire that Steinhardt & Turok’s braneworld constitutes that buffer we run into, or it may be some other system we alight upon. At some point, any scientific investigation, pursued sufficiently arduously, will reach that moment of “we can go no further”. Those of us who paid attention in class know this, an idea that was succinctly encapsulated by the Irish comedian Dara O’Braian, when he uttered the famous words “Of course science doesn’t know everything, because if it did, it would stop!” The number of mythology fanboys who don’t understand the import of this being a source of much hilarity of course.
But of course, a part of the rampant hypocrisy mythology fanboys routinely demonstrate, is their insistence that “Magic Man did it” constitutes that end point. It didn’t constitute that end point when Benjamin Franklin replaced a cartoon magic man with static electricity, it didn’t constitute that end point when Darwin replaced a cartoon magic man with natural selection acting upon variation, it didn’t constitute that end point when scientists discovered that life is chemistry writ large, and it didn’t constitute that end point when the counter-intuitive ideas of general relativity and quantum mechanics were established to be correct by hard empirical test.
Indeed, it’s a testament to the intellectual indolence mythology fanboyism encourages, that you were manifestly incapable of deriving this elementary concept from first principles.
Now, since I’ve just given you the straightest of answers possible to your usual exercise in duplicitous rhetorical “questioning”, can you stop lying about my output?
We were done when you failed to read the answer in a two sentence post, and repeated the question, but by all means run away from the word fuck, and pretend that’s the reason. From someone who actually boasted on here that they could out swear anyone here as well. I’m running out of ironic memes…
A new level of stupidity.