Do we count this one as an Ad-populum or an ‘appeal to authority?’ Fuck, it’s so hard to keep up.
Appeal to authority, Uri fucking Geller was world famous, Ted fucking Bundy was world famous, only Lucy would use that as a retort for someone who has been labelled a nutjob. As if being world famous and nuts were somehow mutually exclusive. Plus the mathematician Nyarl cited as a nutjob isn’t world famous, outside of maths and making bizarre and nuts claims in religious apologetics I doubt many people have heard of John fucking Lennox.
1 Like
Ok, that was a good one, even Captain Cat had to jump off my lap and head for the neighbour’s flower beds after reading that one liner. Kudos mate. At least he doesn’t wear trousers…me…well…
1 Like
Home project for Sheldon
- Make a list of all famous people who are nuts (start with Obama and Trump). When you reach 60 move onto 2.
- Look up the word “example” then move to 3.
- Re-read comment and realise the only thing of relevance was “Famous” all othere criteria such as random names was irrelevant. Move to 4.
- Realise you’re talking irrelevancies again and go back to your comprehension studies.
Ahhh insults, the reaction of someone with nothing to say.
As this comment is once again filled with lack of comprehension sh#t, I’ll just leave you to play with incognicscent.
p.s. Try not to confuse comments on reality with ones on fantasy you’ll sound smarter.
I doubt anyone will be surprised at this continuing lack of self awareness. Or that you have ignored the post content and gone off on one of your tedious disjointed rants.
Thanks, I’d reciprocate, but based on your posts, it’s obvious nothing will help someone is that determined to pat themselves on the back for posting endless idiotic facile and irrational claims.
I’ll see you incogniscient and raise you an incorrigible.
3 Likes
Note how your bald assertion is based on an argument from ignorance.
GRAVITY did.
This entire universe - every single planet moon star and galaxy - was created by nothing more than the blind force of gravity acting upon large clouds of dust and gas through paths of least resistance and are still being formed in this way today like these new exoplanets orbiting the star HR8799 in the constellation of Pegasus.
2 Likes
Then who created God?
If God has always existed, then why not save a step and decide that the Universe has always existed?
Theists tend to think that cosmologists claim that the Universe appeared out of nothing with the Big Bang . . . and this isn’t true.
Cosmologists claim that the Big Bang was the beginning of the current presentation of the Universe . . . which is drastically different than claiming that the whole Universe came out of nothing.
The Kalam Argument claims to reach a conclusion of God by showing that if everything has a cause, then the very first cause must be God (I am oversimplifying for the sake of brevity, as I don’t want to present a strawman of the Kalam Argument . . . since theists use the strawman all of the time, and I don’t wish to sink to their level).
The Kalam Argument has been repeatedly debunked from many different angles. In fact, it may be the most debunked argument for God’s existence.
It’s main utility to Creationists is that it is easy to understand, and it sounds reasonable (at least to uneducated people). It also seems consistant with “common sense.”
I’m all for common sense, as I’m a practical person . . . but common sense has its limitations.
As an example, all one has to do is go outside on a starry night (perhaps with a bowl of popcorn), and watch the heavens rotate around the sky to reach the conclusion the the Earth is at the center of the Universe. So, it is common sense that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, yet this view is wrong.
Sometimes, following common sense can cause disasters.
It was (and often is) believed that lightning is caused by God. This is why it was sacreligious to put lightning rods on church steeples. Also, this is why the church was the safest place to store gunpowder.
The church in Brescia, Italy, exploded and killed approximately 2,000 people because the 90 metric tons of gunpowder exploded when lightning hit the steeple.
As another example (from medicine), it was believed that a sick or injured person benefitted from bed rest, as a sick person should conserve all of their energy for healing. This is–after all–common sense. We wouldn’t want a cardiac patient exerting themselves, as this “strains the heart.”
Yet this viewpoint is wrong. A sick person who stays in bed without moving will often develop pneumonia from fluid accumulating in the lungs. Getting a patient up and moving–even when horribly sick–is almost always beneficial . . . but there are a very few exceptions, like with a hospice patient.
The appeal of the Kalam Argument is often common sense, but common sense is wrong in this circumstance just as it’s wrong in the other examples that I gave.
4 Likes
Correct, to assert a belief is true because it can’t be disproved or an alternative offered is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is also a false dichotomy fallacy of course, since we are not limited to belief in an unevidenced deity creating everything, or knowing an alternative, we can rationally not know how everything came to exist, but still disbelieve claims for a creator deity if they are unsupported by any objective evidence.
1 Like
Well done, and this usually in my experience results in some form of a special pleading fallacy, in order to excuse their imagined and unevidenced deity from requiring a cause and a start. This is usually achieved by a raft of begging the question fallacies, where in an argument for a deity, they make several unevidenced assumptions about that deity. It transcends time for example, and has therefor always existed. Not only is this an unevidenced assumption and therefor a begging the question fallacy, but I’d love to know what always means here, as without time it seems to have lost any meaning?
Always
adverb
- at all times; on all occasions.
Hmm?
Sorry they’ll have to find another word, as without time that one has no real meaning. I also never want to hear another theists agree with this first cause argument, while simultaneously insisting infinite regression is impossible, as this violates the law of non-contradiction, though I guess they can simple make another raft of unevidenced assumptions, since we are dealing with subjective unevidenced superstition anyway. One wonders why they’re bothering with rational arguments anyway, what with all the evidence they claim to have?
I doubt that “common sense” creates stronger arguments than logic? Not least because the phrase is invoked erroneously all the time to describe irrational and unevidenced subjective opinions. Like theists who string logical fallacies together in an endless stream, and then assert they’re claims are rational, seemingly unaware of both the fallacies and what rational means.
1 Like
Thank you for responding to my post, and I agree with your points.
As for “common sense,” I tend to get very bitter and angry when people talk about it, and apologists appeal to common sense when discussing Intelligent Design (a subtle oxymoron) and the Big Bang (when they never took physics or astronomy).
I also get angry when people use common sense to justify the following:
- LGBTQ people are pedophiles, as it’s common sense.
- Interracial marriage is wrong, as God and nature intended the races to separate, as it’s common sense.
- We must send our gay adolescent to conversion therapy because it’s common sense.
- More gun ownership is the answer to mass shootings, as it’s common sense that there will be better odds that a good guy with a gun will be nearby.
And so on.
Common sense is useful . . . but it isn’t the holy grail of absolute wisdom.
Theists use common sense to muddy the waters and justify religious violence, LGBTQ persecution, and a sense of entitlement.
I also get very angry when people throw out the “appeal to common sense” fallacy (which I just invented, although I’m sure I am not the first person to discuss this) as I’m autistic, and I’m often accused of lacking common sense.
For example, it has been suggested that I lack common sense when I refuse to practice racism while working as a paramedic, or suggesting that people facing food insecurity get a free vegetarian meal from a Sikh temple.
Well I have found that common sense is a subjective and rhetorical term, it is defined as good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, now good sense seems very subjective, sound judgement in practical matters seems to have little to do with reason or logic, I suppose that it is why it is so often misused, like people who claim others are closed minded, but not because they are exhibiting unjustified bias for or against ideas or beliefs, but their own bias and prejudice in favour of beliefs and ideas are being rejected.
I don’t blame you, but people often don’t recognise bias in their own views, subjective bias is something we all have to work very hard to avoid. It’s why methods like science and logic that are designed to help reduce and remove bias, and can be shown to do so, are rejected so often by people who have no interest in challenging their own bias.
Common sense IMHO has little to do with reason and logic, and more to do with practical actions, for example it is common sense to do a proper risk assessment before you undertake most activities, you don’t climb a ladder to see if it’s safe, you secure it properly first for example.
Nope you didn’t invent this, it’s called an argument from personal incredulity fallacy.
"Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
So if one is using common sense as some sort of confirmation bias, or a circular reasoning fallacy, then it’s easy to see why the resulting opinion is held.
1 Like
Thank you very much for clarifying this. I found quite a lot I can take away from this post…
1 Like
Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, Utter, utter, utter, utter, utter, utter bollocks!
2 Likes
So you’ve just decided YOUR god dunnit? What about the thousand upon thousands of other man-made gods that have been claimed to exist? Why not something else entirely?
You see your problem is you no more know how the universe really began than I do; your personal problem is that you have a belief (I won’t dignify it by calling a theory or even a hypothesis) that doesn’t fit, it’s just a claim with no validatable supporting evidence (and a lot of stuff that makes it just plain daft); still you shove it into a gap you perceive in scientific knowledge. Your real problem is that not only are there quite a lot of highly educated scientists working in that field, but they actually do have some very good insight into what might have caused the universe to start (at least way more than you do).
To claim you know the answer when so many relevant specialists don’t is nothing but rank arrogance.
UK Atheist
1 Like
The framing of the question is completely wrong. You don’t get to ask ‘who created everything’ because you believe only your god created everything. I refuse to answer who created everything to you, but it is for certain, YOUR GOD CREATED NOTHING and Yahweh doesn’t exist. Why? Because the most basic questions of the aspects of creation have that were by your faith revealed in the Bible (or any other Judeo-Christian-Islamic texts) have been thoroughly debunked and proven wrong and since your faith relies on the fact that the word of God as revealed in the texts cannot be wrong, even one mistake disproves your God.
3 Likes
demonstrate
verb
- Clearly show the existence or truth of (something) by giving proof or evidence.
Hmm…
Debate
verb
- argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner.
Hmm…
Hmm
Hmm…
Lol indeed…FYI the claim would carry a burden of proof to anyone, as do all claims, and yes, this:
Is the very definition of hyperbole…
Hmm…
Believe
noun
- a person who believes in the truth or existence of something.
Hmm…
If anyone can stand his saccharine self aggrandizing hyperbole, @Lucifer provided some comedy gold in this thread, albeit unintentionally.
4 Likes
He was pretty funny fair play. His sententious lectures on spelling alongside that hilarious possessive pronoun in place of you are, is always going to raise a smile…
1 Like
I know this is an old thread, but since Sheldon revived it, I thought I’d try my hand at addressing the issues the OP made. Feel free to comment.
My first reaction to this is: What makes anyone think that someone (or something) had to create everything? Couldn’t it be that everything already existed? That is everything is eternal - maybe not the form it is currently in, but in some form.
Has anyone ever experienced a creation event? Has anyone seen a house “poof” into existence? Or was it built using materials that were transformed from something else to create something useful for house building.
What about god (yahweh/jehovah/whatever)? Who created him? Why the extra step? If he could be eternal, why not other stuff?
See above.
Sure. For some reason, many people need an explanation for why things happen. Sometimes they will even accept a really bad explanation over “I don’t know!”. I’m willing to accept “I don’t know”. Are you?
No, I am not - way above my paygrade. But much more knowledgeable people - astrophysicists, cosmologists - are investigating and all those folks are being watched closely by their colleagues who are eager to criticize any explanation they might offer. I am confident that when they come to some agreement, the explanation will be a pretty good one. But as always, it is subject to future scrutiny and revision. Stay tuned for further events!
Huh? I can only assume you mean that you can’t provide proof in the normal sense of the word, so instead are going to offer “proof” that most logicians wouldn’t consider as proof.
This is using the word “create” to mean 2 different things. To create a website, a person writes code. To create something from nothing … well, I don’t think that’s possible.
Well, it’s a shame the OP’s account was suspended, but it didn’t sound like he was too happy with how he was treated here. You’ve got to have a thick skin if you are going to post on the internet. You going to have to have an even thicker skin if you are posting about religion on an atheist website.
Not bad, but I’d have dismissed it as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it is irrational to assume a claim gains credence through the lack of an alternative explanation.
That no one experienced an event, does not of course mean it did not happen, no human experienced the big bang for example.
Atheism is not a claim, that’s all the answer this straw man fallacy needed. Disbelieving a claim need not involve making a contrary claim.
Oh in this instance we can go farther than disbelief, since the creation myth of the bible makes erroneous assertions, that are demonstrably false.
A far simpler explanation is that despite his arrogant & hilarious sententious ad hominem to others, decrying their comprehension of English, he actually doesn’t understand that the words prove and demonstrate are synonyms. His posts suggested he had a very poor grasp of English.
It’s a false equivalence fallacy, since we have sufficient objective evidence that all websites are designed are created, we have no such objective evidence that a deity exists or created anything, or that a deity is even possible.
I don’t think it’s a shame, as his posts demonstrated he was not really interested in honest debate, and he was treated far better than his posts deserved.
Not really, all he needed was a a sound argument, or some objective evidence, or some grasp of informal logic, or even a desire to honestly subject his beliefs to critical scrutiny, he had none of that, so a thick skin wouldn’t help, indeed many religious apologists are impervious to such things, they need a “thinner skin” to let a few facts through.
That depends what they are seeking I suppose, the truth, honest debate, and critical scrutiny, then they’ll be fine, if they expect their beliefs to be ring-fenced from critical scrutiny, or their arguments from scorn, then what they need are more sound beliefs, and rational arguments. All you need for a thick skin is a closed mind, and that bias is the definition of blind faith.
Just look at @Lucifer , he claimed to be an atheist, and yet was as closed minded and thick skinned as any theists we have seen on here. With equally poor arguments…
1 Like