Take it over to the Lounge. This is the Debate room. Thx!
Good idea…there’s a tile floor in there…
So there can be no explanation for any deity then.
If it were sound then it must also applied to any claim a deity exists. yet we see you keep positing a deity as a cause, what caused the deity, then you go immediately to a special pleading fallacy and claim that deity always existed, then the rational inference is why can’t the universe have always existed, then you go back and insist it must have a cause, and so and so on, on an endless contradictory circle.
5 Likes
Ha ha ha ha … It’s like a comedy of errors… over and over and over again.
6 Likes
So now here we are being invited to jump back on the merry-go-round of “define god for me and then provide your standard for determining the validity of evidence for the god I refuse to define, all so that I can reject both while still belittling you for not providing your standards for evidence of an invisible heretofore unevidenced thing”. 
Hey Cog, I am imagining a “thing”. Now I would like for you to define this “thing” and then proceed to describe how you would determine the validity of evidence as to the correct identity of the thing and evidence for it actually being a thought. Of course I am not going to give you any hints as to what I am thinking of. What’s wrong? Are your views so vacuous that you don’t even have a methodology for discerning my imaginary images and validating them as well?
I would identify my imaginary “thing”, but you are so mired in your atheist dogma that you would just reject anything that doesn’t fit your atheist world view…now go ahead and prove me wrong😤
4 Likes
That’s quite untrue. God is rationally inferred. Given our propensity to seek explanations and given that scientific explanations always presume laws then there’s no prospect of scientifically explaining the presence of those laws themselves.
Therefore - if there is to be an explanation - it cannot be in terms of laws, it must be an agency that can bring laws into existence and cannot itself be a law - cannot be deterministic (which is what laws are).
So we rationally infer that something not law caused law to exist and because it itself was not law, not mechanistic it must have been entirely different so we - some of us - posit “will” or “intent” or “sentience” as what brought the universe and its attendant laws, into existence.
In this day and age after a lifetime of trusting and cherishing science, physics, mathematics, after fifty years of working with complex systems both hardware and software and working on operating system design and programming language design and a host of engineering related disciplines, nothing is more absurd to me to day than the atheist’s dogmatic assertions about mythology and absurdities and so on.
If you choose to interpret these things as you do then what of it?
The problem I see with your position is that it is based on scientism, overt trust that science and nothing but science, can have any explanatory value with respect to reality. But science has limits, these questions about the origins of science are not scientific questions ! they are PHILOSOPHICAL questions.
Once again God is inferred not simply asserted, it is a rational thing to consider given that physical reality cannot be explained by recourse to physical reality, there is no other rational explanation other than God, for the universe other than “it has always existed” which is also not a scientific explanation.
Science can’t help you with any of this, give it up, we’re dealing with philosophical and metaphysical questions if you know nothing about these subjects then how can you even post opinions on this?
Atheists certainly the militant and intolerant atheists, should put science to one side because none of this has very much to do with science, philosophy and metaphysics are not science so why do they harp on and on as if they were.
That’s a lie, I’ve demonstrated unequivocally your arguments are relentlessly irrational.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy…
QED
“I infer a god and I think I’m rational.”
There, fixed it for you.
1 Like
Look I don’t care for bitterness, invective and abuse, believe what you want, this is the last response you will get from me in the forum going forward. Either apologize for your rude and abusive attacks on my character and honesty or you can piss in the wind, because I don’t have time for juvenility like this, it has no place in adult discourse.
There’s the atheist dogma right there - the insistence that any suggestion there is a God a sentient agency, is equated with irrationality.
You regard the concept not with an open mind, but with the blinkered dogmatic view that it is and must be irrational.
The definition of atheism to you is “an absence of belief in irrational things and God is an irrational thing”.
Just out of curiosity. Could you tell me a bit about how you started on your journey as a Christian and how you concluded that this god of yours was real? Was it a family member or a friend that sat down and talked to you about “those” beliefs?
2 Likes
And once again, the in tray is overflowing with mythology fanboy bullshit and lies in need of immolating with the discoursive flamethrower … let’s see what excremetnal drivel awaits this time, shall we?
Bollocks. Your cartoon magic man is merely asserted to exist, because you don’t have any genuine data to draw an inference from, merely ex recto apologetic fabrications pretending to be data.
“Here’s some made up shit from a pre-scientific mythology” isn’t an “explanation”, it’s a pretence thereof.
Again, Hertog disagrees with you. But you’ll doubtless keep lying about this.
Failure on several grounds. First, in order for any asserted “agency” to be able to perform any task, there has to exist beforehand a framework of consistently reliable and repeatable interactions, without which your “agency” is utterly impotent. You have it backwards.
Second, last time I checked, the laws of quantum mechanics weren’t deterministic.
Fixed it for you.
Bullshit. Once again, without a pre-existing framework of consistently reliably and repeatable interactions, your fictitious “agency” is impotent. Unless you want to appeal to magic of course, but that will simply result in pointing and laughing on the part of those of us who paid attention in class.
Once again, you have it backwards. Without a pre-existing framework of consistenly reliable and repeatable interactions, your “agency” is impotent.
Except that oops, many cosmological physicists are positing that relevant material entities and interactions have always existed, and didn’t need poofing into existence by an imaginary cartoon magic man as a direct corollary. They’re cutting out the superfluous magic middleman.
Plus, as I’ve already stated (and which you’ve repeatedly lied about), Hertog has a solution involving currently observable physical laws arising from an evolutionary process.
More assertions on your part. Which are almost certainly as discardable as your other assertions here.
These aren’t “dogmatic assertions”, they’re demonstrable FACT.
For example, your sad little mythology contains within its pages, the cretinous assertion that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks. This isn’t a “dogmatic assertion”, it’s an independently verifiable fact.
This assertion was found to be a risible lie by a 9th century monk, whose landmark scientific research not only taught us how genetics actually operates, but laid the foundations of modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.
Apparently your cartoon magic man, if it ever existed, was not only too stupid to present basic biological facts correctly, but was also insufficiently “omniscient” to foresee the emergence of said 19th century monk and his diligent scientific experiments. Bit of a dismal failure for an entity asserted to possess “perfect foreknowledge” of the future, that one.
The above isn’t a matter of “interpretation”, it’s precisely what the relevant words in your sad little mythology directly assert.
Oh look, boys and girls, he’s wheeled out the “scientism” apologetic bullshit and lies!!!
Which IS apologetic bullshit and lies, because it consists of a sleazy and menadcious attempt to misrepresent proper acceptance of evidentially supported postulates as purportedly constituting a “dogma” (while it’s actually the very antithesis thereof), and a failed attempt to erect a fake “symmetry” between said acceptance of evidentially supported postulates and uncritical acceptance of mythological assertions. This garbage might fool the gullible and uneducated, but it doesn’t work with people who paid attention in class.
But I’m used to seeing this bullshit from mythology fanboys, they’ve been wearing out the grooves on this particlar record for decades.
Strawman caricature of what those of us who paid attention in class actually think.
What we actually think on the matter, is that direct experimental test and verification of postulates, is a far more reliable source of genuine, substantive knowledge, than treating the risible assertions of a pre-scientific mythology uncritically as fact.
And, of course, anyone who understands the operation of, for example, the historiographical method within history, is also in a position to toss your strawman caricature into the bin.
Oh look, it’s the “science doesn’t know everything” trope. Mythology doesn’t know anything.
How many precedents have been set to date, with respect to so-called “philosophical” questions eventually falling within the remit of hard empirical science?
In the past, pre-scientific people thought lightning was the product of an angry magic man in the sky. Then Benjamin Franklin decided to fly a kite in a thunderstorm, and tossed that idea into the bin.
In the past, pre-scientific people thought biodiversity was poofed into existence by a magic man in the sky. Darwin torpedoed that one below the waterline, followed by just about every diligent biologist afterwards.
in the past, pre-scientifc people thought we needed a magic man in the sky to explain the origin of life. Then prebiotic chemists started presenting evidence that chemical reactions could accomplish the task instead.
In the past, pre-scientific people thought we needed a magic man in the sky to explain the origin of the observable universe in its current form. Cosmological physicists are turning that into a research work in progress.
Those gaps for a cartoon magic man in the sky are vanishing.
At this point, I was going to end this post with my usual exhortation to you to stop lying, but then, I realised that your continued lying simply makes my case for me. That you have to misrepresent my output in the scurrilous manner that you do, and resort to specious tone policing and other fake rhetorical devices to try and hand-wave away the facts I present, simply ensures that the wider audience will regard you as woefully equipped to deal with said fact.
Funny how mythology fanboys never alight upon ideas such as this, isn’t it?
1 Like
This is going to be good …
Funny how all the “arguments” and ex recto apologetic fabrications peddled to try and prop up this notion all involves failures of basic reasoning and well-known logical fallacies. Recognising this isn’t “atheist dogma” (another of your tiresome lies), it’s the proper business of exposing falsehood.
2 Likes
In the same way I consider a gravitational field or the electromagnetic field real, their presence can be inferred from observation.
Well you are free to present your argument that proves a belief in God is irrational, you must have proof of course else you’d not hold the belief it was irrational, you know, atheists use evidence to justify their belief, so share with us, what evidence do you have that a belief in God is irrational?
Did you actually READ my previous post, where I provided explicit examples?
Such as the fact that every time a cartoon magic man has been asserted to be “necessary” to “explain” a given phenomenon, scientists have replaced it with testable natural processes?
Or that the mythology in question contains assertions known not merely to be wrong in the light of modern scientific discoveries, but fatuous and absurd? Such as that bilge about genetics being controlled by coloured sticks? If you believe in a god that is willing to be associated with cretinous nonsense such as that, then this is manifestly irrational.
You missed (purposefully?) the point entirely. You have made many, many sweeping posts that are your personal thoughts yet do not note them as such. You would likely get way less push back here if you were to preface your statements with “I think”, “I consider “, “ it’s been my experience that”, etc.
Edited to add…I think you jumped right into saying my post was dogma because you are on an atheists are dogmatic bender.
You mean your lecture? 600, 700 word essays? No, TLDR. But if you really do have evidence that God is irrational please share it.
State the premises and then state the conclusion “Therefore a belief in God is irrational”, put up or shut up.