If you find a cabin in the woods, you’d rightly wonder who built it because although physical laws keep it in place, clearly it didn’t accidentally come into being, without a creator.
When i witness the grandeur, order and beauty of the universe, i cannot ascribe it to accident. Itself is evidence of a creator. The simple fact that we are happy when striving to be better, indicates an origin that is far better than us (a god). The fact that we are happiest when helping others indicates the true purpose of life (loving/helping others, including ourselves, in complete agreement with Christianity).
Your wrong. We see a cabin in the woods and we know it was built. People build cabins. This is a fact. We have no evidence at all of cabins ever coming accidentally into being.
The beauty of the universe is in no way comparable to a cabin in the woods. No one has ever made a universe. To assert that a universe was created, you would first need to demonstrate something capable of creating it. You don’t get to work backward and assume a creator. You certainly do not get to assert your version of a creator. To get there you would need to first demonstrate that your creator thing is real and then, that all other creator gods were not real. Good Luck with that.
You do not get to ‘assert’ a creator into existence. You do not get to assert that the universe was created without providing evidence. You’re simply making inane assertions. Your assertion is no different that saying “The Easter Bunny created the universe.” The evidence would be the same.
4 Likes
I don’t think there is any disagreement here that some evidence is more convincing than other evidence. I refer to this as the table of epistemology. At the top are the best forms of evidence and at the bottom are the best forms of anti-evidence. Between the two are every gradation and hue of truth and lies. At the top, the very top, i put “God said so,” and at the bottom I put “the devil said so.” This evidence requires that one be able to determine if in fact it was said by either party. This determination can be had by “seeking [God] diligently with all your heart and you will find [him].” Communication with creator of the universe cannot be done haphazardly, half-heartedly, or half-wittedly. You must bring your best for it to work.
Does this work for all gods?
2 Likes
This is completely meaningless unless you first can actually empirically show there is a god and a devil. Then you have to document they actually said that. Unless you can do that, your statement is just empty gobbledygook.
2 Likes
What is the physical mechanism of this two-way communication? Does it rely on the electromagnetic spectrum? Does it rely on quantum coupling?
Where is the evidence for this communication? Saying it exists without providing evidence doesn’t make it so.
3 Likes
Where did this creator come from?
3 Likes
You don’t need to ask, it’s a debate forum, what is it you wanted to debate?
Not for me, the problem is that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, this is sufficient reason for me to withhold belief it exists. Though contradictions and inconsistencies in Christian apologetics would demonstrate that those arguments are irrational.
What is it, and how do you test it or subject it to critical and rational scrutiny?
Please support this claim with some objective evidence, but hypothetically this deity has failed, since I cannot base belief on faith, as I could believe literally anything that way.
No, this is a common false equivalence fallacy religious apologists use, as we can demonstrate that human designs and creations are possible with objective evidence, we don’t need faith.
Even were this dubious claim true, the viability of the engineering could be demonstrated using mathematics. At no point would faith be used or needed, unless you’re using another common error in apologetics that equates religious faith, defined as “strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof”, with the primary definition of the word as “complete trust or confidence in someone or something”, this is another false equivalence fallacy.
Can you demonstrate it in any objective way? If not it’s worthless in demonstrating existence, as this is defined as being alive or having objective reality.
Like invisible unicorns don’t provide physical evidence of their existence you mean, do you believe they exist? You’re merely using an unfalsifiable concept of deity to create a circular argument, and one that will inevitably lead to a special pleading fallacy as well, unless you accept all other unfalsifiable claims of course, even when they contradict each other.
There are claims in the bible, to call them evidence would again mean one could believe all religious claims for all of the countless thousands of deities that humans have imagined.
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
Nope, I can test it to objectively verify that it works, so this is another false equivalence fallacy. trust and confidence can based on objective evidence, can you offer any objective evidence a deity exists, or is even possible?
Exactly so, thus it can objectively evidenced. Do you have a comparable test for your deity’s existence?
If that were true then he’s failed of course, as I cannot base belief on religious faith, since it would get no closer to Jesus than Zeus, Allah, or the Aztec deity of gluttony, so can you support this latest claim with anything approaching objective evidence?
Faith (religious) by definition involves subjective bias, by definition it can’t be objectively verified, but please do so if you think you can, but I will bet my house it simply involves more subjective claims. The kind you are reeling off in every post so far.
As Muslims, and Hindus, and Jews do you mean?
Muslims make the exact same claim, as do other religions of course, it just sounds like subjective bias. They can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong. Without objective evidence that a deity exists, or is even possible, I can only remain dubious.
Nope, it is a branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge.
That sounds like an argumentum ad populum fallacy to me, the number of people who believe something tells us nothing at all about that belief.
So have you done this for all the countless thousands of deities humans have imagined? It seems unlikely, and this still sounds like subjective bias to me, truth is best ascertained by following the objective evidence, not by suggestably looking to support a belief you’re already emotionally invested in.
Then please demonstrate the best you think you have, as so far all you have posted are claims.
Three claims, zero objective evidence.
That’s another false equivalence fallacy, you’re paraphrasing Paley’s watchmaker fallacy, we know the cabin is designed and created because we have objective evidence to support that, and it contrasts with it’s natural surrounding precisely because cabins don’t randomly appear in nature, a characteristic of all designed things, where we can objectively evidence design that is. The last part is something of a straw man fallacy, since no one claims nature came about by accident, what does that even mean in this context? It’s also an argument from personal incredulity fallacy. We know nature exists an objective fact, as does the physical material universe, you’re violating Occam’s razor, by adding an (so far) unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition.
Wow, firstly I don’t believe your unevidenced assumption that all humans feel this way, since there is ample objective evidence of selfish cruelty, secondly empathy is present in all species that have evolved to live in societal groups, as it would need to be of course for any kind of societal cohesion, thirdly you just violated Occam’s razor again, by tacking a deity on without even the pretence of any objective evidence, and lastly the deity depicted in the bible is barbarically cruel, capriciously sadistic, murderous and genocidal, it is selfish, egotistical, childish, petty and vindictive, it endorses slavery, commits indiscriminate murder and encourages its pets to do the same, with wars of ethnic cleansing, and sex trafficking children prisoners. It tortures a newborn baby to death, and commits an act of global genocide out of sheer caprice, if you think this is moral, let alone perfectly moral, then I am genuinely concerned.
That is not evidence at all, it is a claim.
So that’s 18 posts, and not one shred of objective evidence, only the usual string of subjective unevidenced claims, and logical fallacies we see all the time from religious apologetics.
FYI on a scale of reliability we would have objective evidence at the top, that’s why methods designed to remove as much subjective bias as possible, like science and logic, are the most successful we have. At the bottom would be faith based subjective beliefs, like religious beliefs that are unsupported by any objective evidence at all.
Claiming a deity said something is worthless unless you can demonstrate it exists or is even possible, you haven’t even tried to do this, so if you’re genuinely seeking to debate this, then you might honestly address that fact.
- What is it, define it accurately?
- Demonstrate some objective evidence it exists, (that it is alive, or has objective reality)or that it is even possible.
You’re no closer now than you were 18 posts ago…and you can’t claim something exists then remove all the characteristics that define existence. It either is alive and part of objective reality, and thus exists, and we can demonstrate this, or we can’t and need the subjective vapidity of faith to pretend it exists in any meaningful way.
3 Likes
It works for my left foot. It has been talking to me for weeks now. I think it’s spiritual but I don’t speak Spanish so I have no idea what it it trying to tell me.
1 Like
My daughter is fluent. I could ask her to translate if you’d like.
lol… (Heavy breathing…) What’s she wearing…?
Howdy, Ecbar. Sorry I’m late to the show, but it’s been a busy weekend. Welcome to the AR, by the way. Seems you’ve already met most of our motley crew here. Quite a fine and knowledgable bunch. Although, I would advise staying out of arms reach of Cog if your inoculations aren’t up to date. Anyway…
While your statement about the disciples may actually be true for SOME people, it is not true for all. You might as well have said, “All left-handed people prefer chocolate ice cream.” Your Christianity is gauged in MANY various ways for MANY different reasons by each individual based on countless factors unique to each individual. Personally, MY “critique” of Christianity is based on the simple fact the teachings of the bible and of its followers make absolutely NO SENSE. There are WAY too many inconsistencies, and WAY too many contradictions. As I’ve said many times over the past few years, “Several thousand Christian sects following the same “Perfect Word of God” can’t be wrong.” In other words, to determine why atheists do not believe in your god (or any other gods, for that matter), you will have to go ask each individual why he/she does not believe, because the answers will often vary widely from person to person. In that same respect, those who follow different religions/gods will also likely have varying views on Christianity. Might want to take these things into consideration before making such general/sweeping statements in the future. Meanwhile…
That “critter” living in my garage @CyberLN mentioned is the Ginormous Invisible Blue Universe Creating Bunny. His name is Kyle, and he LOVES carrots. And the only way you can see him and communicate with him is if you TRULY believe in him. If you don’t believe in him, he simply ignores you, no matter how much you try to talk to him. (Kyle is kinda snobbish like that, for some reason.) He is actually bigger than our entire known universe, but he can fit in my garage because he is spiritual and not physical. But, please, I don’t want to bore you with all the details. Basically, I just wanted you to know Cyber wasn’t making that up just to mess with you. If you DO want to know more about Kyle, though, please feel free to ask. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you might have.
(Edit to go change out the hay in the garage.)
1 Like
No! No! No! Everyone knows the universe was created by Harvey, not Kyle, and Harvey is purple, not blue.
1 Like
If you don’t mind, I have a few questions. I don’t care if Kyle cares or not. I’m going to ask the questions anyway!
If Kyle is invisible, how can he be blue? I mean, I have a friend who says he has an invisible pink dragon in his garage and he says that when the dragon isn’t invisible, he’s pink, so is Kyle like that?
I have looked in my friend’s garage a number of times and never saw the dragon, so I figure in addition to being invisible, he must also be very small. Is Kyle like that, too? But that doesn’t explain how he is bigger than the universe, but fits in the garage. How does that work?
And lastly, if Kyle creates universes, has he consulted with scientists about multiverses? I’m sure he could help them figure this part out.
Thanks in advance.
1 Like
Invisible ink! Duh! Everyone knows that. Kyle is just invisible. Just like invisible blue ink. You can’t measure him using human concepts. He is beyond human reason. (Why don’t you know these things?)
No! He is ‘omnipresent’ and the mortar that holds all things together. Without Kyle, every atom in your body would fly off into space. Kyle is the beginning and the end. He is the Alpha and the Omega. Looked for, he can not be seen. Felt for, he can not be touched.
Yes. It does. Just because he fits in the garage does not mean he is not touching every star, every rock, or every life form in the universe. The problem is not with Kyle but rather, with your inability to look beyond your simplistic perception of a material existence. You are so much more than you imagine and Kyle can show you the truth.
Kyle is the universe, self-creating. (As explained above.) Of course, he has consulted scientists. Thousands of scientists all over the world know of Kyle and his existence. The ones that don’t will burn in the firey unicorn pit of hell. They will suffer for all eternity while listening to Princess Twilight Sparkle’s theme song over and over and over again. Princess Twilight Sparkle's Theme song - Google Search
There is no reason to help anyone out. The truth was written on their souls and if they reject the truth, they burn in the pits of unicorn hell. (same as above).
This stuff is so elementary. I am surprised you have not heard it before. Believe now of suffer eternally. This is the gift of salvation Kyle brings to you. You do not have to suffer. You can live an afterlife free of the fires of Hell as you dance to the choir and praise Kyle with the unicorn friendship song.
2 Likes
Cog,
It sounds like you are a follower of Kyle. I was thinking about following my buddy’s dragon because he was telling me he could make me rich, but if Kyle has a book that contradicts itself and has horrific stories, I’m in!
2 Likes
Sounds like you’re making things up. There has never been any admissible evidence presented for a deity. Faith is not evidence. Spiritual proof…is not evidence. Spiritual proof is just another word for confirmation bias.
2 Likes
Well now it’s funny you should say so, let’s take a look.
Spiritual
adjective
- relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
- relating to religion or religious belief.
Proof
noun
- evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
We have a winner, he @Ecbarrowes did in fact make up bs, and combine two incongruous words as a deepity, whilst pretending it was in fcat
profound, but was in fact vapid nonsense.
Now for a bonus point, and to win this round, can you answer this question?
- Is @Ecbarrowes ever coming back to honestly address the many objections to his bs, after his grandiose claim to want to debate his superstitious beliefs in a deity?
I try not to form any bias prima facie, but if they can’t even fucking spell atheism, (it’s the absence of theism ffs) then they’re kind of tying my amoral heathen hands… 
…
Whaaaaat? Oh yeah I see where you’re going wrong, there’s “tons of evidence” in fact, but faith is just how we ignore all the naysayers who, motivated by Satan, want to deny it all.
Well being a pedant I must again point out your error, it’s two words, the rest is sound though…
Oh, for Pete’s sake! You’re one of those Harvey guys? 
For your information, Harvey didn’t arrive on scene until AFTER Kyle (Carrots Be Unto Him) created OUR universe. Granted, it IS possible Harvey created another universe somewhere else once Kyle (CBUH) brought him into being. After all, Harvey does have a few “skills”. Nobody is arguing that. Be that as it may, please make no mistake, Kyle (CBUH) is the creator of OUR universe and everything within it. (Including Harvey.)
Thank you for your questions, Capri. Looks like you have some good ones, too. I am more than happy to answer them for you.
-
Yes, Kyle (CBUH) is indeed invisible and blue. In order to see him in all his blue glory, though, you first have to truly believe in him. It’s the ONLY way anybody can ever see him. (Oh, and bringing him a generous quantity of fresh carrots as an offering also tends to help. Just sayin’…)
-
Well, like I said, Kyle (CBUH) is larger than our observable universe. However, he can fit in my garage because he is SPIRITUAL, not physical. Just basic common sense, really.
-
Kyle (CBUH) does consult with scientists, but he would NEVER dare interfere with the Free Will of the scientists or any other human. (Sure, he might fiddle with the behavior of sea squids from time to time just for shits and giggles, but that’s another story altogether.) Anyway, he refuses to control the minds of his human creations. He prefers Mankind and Womankind to figure things out all on their own. Sure, he may drop a few hints here and there, but it’s up to the individual to pay attention to those hints. Those who don’t listen will pay the price of their lack of faith. It amuses him, for some odd reason… (shrugging shoulders)…
Again, some really good questions, and I do hope the answers helped. I also see that @Cognostic has provided some very helpful info about Kyle (CBUH). Even added some details I forgot to mention. Thanks, Brother Cog!
1 Like
Damn it. I’m sorry, folks. I should have known bringing up Kyle would scare @Ecbarrowes away.
2 Likes