This is an unevidenced assumption about what existed and what was possible before the big bang. It also doesn’t evidence a deity - at all. Even were we to accept his unevidenced assumption that a material / natural phenomena were impossible.
I’m not responding to uncivil posts.
And you, what was your first belief, where did it come from, if as you risibly claimed beliefs can only come from beliefs? You are positing an infinite regress of human beliefs, and we are finite both as individuals and as a species.
Straw man fallacy, since you keep asking what about your claims is irrational, that right there.
Yes, I know how you choose to interpret this stuff, that’s your choice of course even if it is illogical.
Understand, we CAN explain X but its not a scientific explanation. Science cannot be used to explain the presence of the universe because if there was such an explanation it would of necessity have to refer to something already existing, the very thing whose presence we are striving to explain.
If you’d ever actually looked at a mathematical theory in physics you’d have a better chance of following along here.
I don’t claim to know how beliefs “get into us” we can develop new beliefs from prior one’s though, we know that, we do it all the time in science and mathematics.
As for unevidenced argument it was you who began this disagreement when you made the unevidenced argument “We all start from a position of lacking beliefs”. I asked for evidence and supporting reasoning already but you didn’t have any.
I have no intention of trying to convince you God exists or God created everything. My motive in most of these discussions is to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity and futility of so called “atheism”. Once you begin to see it as I do (the emperors new clothes) only then will you begin to develop the insight that might enable you to perceive God, but while you continue to place your faith in scientism you’ll not make any progress.
That’s a lie, I have highlighted almost half a dozen examples of you using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies in your first few posts. and explained why they are fallacious, so hand waving won’t do it, nor am I alone in spotting these logical fallacies you use almost relentlessly. In fact this amounts to little more than hand waving from you again, using what looks suspiciously like a poisoning of the well fallacy again, ironically. I did not create the principles of logic, and your argument are vio,atig a basic principle as has been explained.
repeating your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy won’t help. I’ll try bullet points then.
- Your assertion about science are your subjective beliefs.
- Even if we accept you belief about what science can explain all we are left with is something we cannot explain.
- To assert anything at all based on not having, or not being able to explain something, is by definition an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
- Any arguments that uses, or is based on a known logical fallacy, is **by definition an irrational argument. **
Perhaps, or i could cite the fact that religiosity decreases among scientists, and is vastly lower among elite scientists, so either they don’t agree there is mathematical or scientific evidence for a deity, or they don’t understand what you are claiming exists. Couple that with the fact I have seen highly credentialed and accomplished scientists make irrational and subjective claims about their religious beliefs, it is just as plausible that what you’re citing as scientific evidence for a deity is nothing more than the subjective religious beliefs of someone who happens to be a scientist.
I asked you to offer the best argument you thought John Lennox had, since you were the one who raised his arguments, and guess what, we’ve had fuck all from you, again!!
1 Like
Touché. I did indeed write that. I’d still like to know, however, about how you arrived at the notion that new beliefs could only be developed if one already held beliefs.
1 Like
You’re not responding to far more than that, so I doubt anyone will care what you disingenuously choose to ignore, though I imagine most will draw an obvious inference when they read through this discourse, given how many unsupported claims you have reeled off, and then refuse to revisist when asked, all the while sententiously demanding others meet a standard you refuse to.
In case you hadn’t noticed very few of the posters here here can even be bothered to answer much of the unevidenced and irrational dross you’ve posted. those that have, have mostly decided the others were right not to bother. Only a small few have tried to help you here, and a pretty thankless task its been.
1 Like
Ah yes, the old tried and tested cause and effect argument. I’m not saying that so far that hasn’t been the case and that we normally assume everything has a cause but, as with all science, it only takes one verified observation to refute any idea so you can’t use it as a blanket requirement for all explanations especially when we’re talking about the beginnings of the universe. Besides, as I said earlier, there’s the idea of the multiverse as well as several other ideas such as the big bang/big crunch etc.
UK Atheist
1 Like
Vs.
So which is it? We can do so or it must be so?
2 Likes
Well claiming the universe came to be without a cause is a rather poorer argument than claiming some non material agency created it. So on that basis alone it’s intellectually less explanatory.
The “multiverse” is a misnomer, I wish it had been labelled the “multicosmos”. The very term “universe” means all that exists, all matter, fields, laws, energy and so on. The multiverse is the hypothesis that the universe can exist in multiple different states at the same time, it stems from a particular interpretation of quantum physics, other interpretations have no multiverse.
The fact remains even with a multiplicity of cosmoi, collectively the system as a whole exists and begs for an explanation - well to genuine scientist it cries out for an explanation.
The “old cause and effect argument” is the foundation of scientific inquiry, you can’t very well embrace it for all your scientific arguments and then dismiss as trivial as soon it become an inconvenience.
Because every rational belief will have some justification, some reasoning or other that support the conclusion the belief is true, do you agree so far?
New beliefs or rational beliefs?
There are rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. If your worldview is one that relies on one or more irrational beliefs then say so now as that has a bearing on this discussion.
Do you therefore agree: every rational belief will have some justification, some reasoning or other that support the conclusion the belief is true, do you agree so far?
Not going there. My question was in reference to your statement that new beliefs could only come from existing beliefs. If you won’t focus on that, and instead want to divert to rationality of beliefs, then you’re essentially ending this discussion. Ending it, I suspect, because you cannot / will not admit that you made that statement in error.
I am presenting my step by step argument. I’m asking if you agree with each step before I present the next, it’s called presenting a rational argument. I want to go through each step and find the first step at which we disagree.
Do you therefore agree: every rational belief will have some justification, some reasoning or other that support the conclusion the belief is true, do you agree so far?
Has the question scared you? unnerved you in some way?
No, it actually irritates me. You’ve made it abundantly clear to me that you have no intention of providing a clear, concise answer to a clear, concise question.
He didn’t claim that, you don’t appear to understand the difference between keeping an open mind, and making a claim.
Please explain HOW in detail, you believe your deity created the universe? If you can’t do this, then please stop disingenuously labelling it as an explanation.
Only you are claiming to have an explanation, and you have not yet offered it beyond a facile and bare claim god did it, is not an explanation, it has no explanatory powers.
You keep telling us that science can never explain anything outside of the material universe, now you’re using a special pleading fallacy to use cause and effect as “the foundation of scientific inquiry,” to make an assertion of what is and is not possible outside of the conditions of that material universe. This fallacy is present in every version of first cause arguments I’ve ever seen, and it still of course wouldn’t evidence a deity as that cause? In fact the mangling of KCA by the likes of Lane Craig then report to a raft of begging the question fallacies, where in an argument for a creator deity, they make a string of unevidenced assumptions about its nature.
He didn’t, you really need to learn to read more carefully. Though the irony is now off the scale given you have relentlessly asserted science can explain nothing about the origin o the material universe, and are now doing just that yourself. Oh dear…