OK that’s that then I suppose.
Nonsense, we can not know.
The irony overload of all irony overloads. I don’t need to falsify your assertion, as I am not saying what is and is not possible prior to the big bang, philosophy and metaphysics, priceless, you don’t know what was possible and what not prior to the big bang, why you haven’t the integrity to admit this is bizarre, but nonetheless irrelevant.
Created by us, and we evolved in and are therefor derived from the universe, and you just asserted that:
What those laws describe are characteristics of the physical universe, but we cannot say what was and was not possible prior to the big bang.
Of course it is a special pleading fallacy, and now you are using an obvious false dichotomy fallacy.
Straw man fallacy, this is a failure in reasoning you’ve had from the start, but disbelieving your strident claim that something is impossible, is not a claim that it is impossible.
“Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception. It is the application of a double standard.”
If you as you claimed a deity has always existed, then deny that the universe might have always existed, but in a different state while offering no explanation, and ignoring my question (below) it is by definition a special pleading fallacy.
No it isn’t I choose what I choose, as I said too earlier:
Take your pick 1 or 2, I chose 2.
Yes it could, that is option 1. in the two that I listed, that might be the reality too but I personally prefer 2. over 1.
He either won’t or can’t see the difference, it’s almost comical now.
That’s not an argument, it’s hand waving. Your double standard devoid as it is of any explanation for it, is clearly a special pleading fallacy, and I offered you the definition.
Nope that’s another false dichotomy fallacy, and I am done explaining these, since you dishonestly ignore them anyway.
No you can’t, I have demonstrated repeatedly your strident claims are using known logical fallacies, and are by definition irrational.
Then given we don’t know if it did or not, or what state it might have existed in you cannot claim what might and might not have been possible, as you have been doing from the start.
This demonstrates clearly your internal bias.
You cannot demonstrate there is an ‘outside of the universe’ cannot demonstrate the super natural, cannot demonstrate a god influence any of the scriptures of the various holy books…
Wishful thinking at its finests.
That’s true only if there are additional rational alternatives to 1. and 2. If there are others then state them please else don’t make accusations that you can’t substantiate.
Am I to understand you are now claiming - in effect - that you can prove God/supernatural does not exist?
I can, I can and do argue that there cannot be a scientific explanation because we can’t use X (laws, fields, determinism) to explain the existence of X (laws, fields, determinism).
You are all over the place, it’s a horror story for some, to see their devotion to science put aside because it has no role - without science you are stuck and so this is why you are going around in circles.
I never claimed to be without bias, given a choice of two paintings one will choose their preference and therefore reveal their “bias” I am no different.
No we can’t demonstrate but we can infer. We can’t demonstrate a black hole but we can infer it, we can’t demonstrate a bacterium eventually evolving into a mouse, that too is an inference.
Not knowing is a rational alternative, and you have not demonstrated that 2 is a rational choice.
More irony…
No.
Asserting something isn’t possible because we cannot demonstrate it is, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. If we don’t know then you cannot simply assert it is impossible, and even were it impossible, you are then using a false dichotomy fallacy.
I have made no claims about what science can explain prior to the big bang, only you have done that, again this basic error in comprehension seems to one you are unable to understand. I will try bullet points:
- You claimed science cannot explain anything prior to the existence of the big bang.
- I don’t believe this, as you cannot demonstrate it, and you do not know what was and was not possible.
- I am not claiming it is possible.
It’s pretty simple, who knows why you are struggling with it.
Nope, that is simply poor comprehension on your part. Your argument involve strident claims you cannot demonstrate are possible, for a deity for supernatural causes, they involve argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, and false dichotomy fallacies. That alone is sufficient for me to withhold belief.
Nope, I have used no circular reasoning fallacies, only your claims have done this.
Not rationally, that is axiomatic, you’ve had months and have expended pages, and always the same fallacious arguments.
Open minded
adjective
- willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced.
Bias in favour of only one explanation, that itself can neither be demonstrated as possible, or rational is not being open minded.
I’m sorry you see it that way, I see no point into laboring this with you any further, have a nice day.
A very poor analogy.
Again though, infering what confirms to reality, that can be explained and demonstrated…
Why? why do you say its a “poor” analogy?
What on earth are you talking about? what does that convoluted statement even mean?
Are you objecting to inferring things? why? we do it all the time every day.
Because it would be actually be comparing one painting that you can visit in a gallary, maybe touch and everyone can demonstrably agree.
The othee painting is one you wish were real.
There was a typo, ‘what conforms to reality’.
Sure we can infer anything but the weight of the inference or claim can be dismisses with ease if riddled with inaccuracies and wishful thinking.
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, All the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldnt make sense of Humpty’s pronouncements.
1 Like
The little wascal has spiwit!!!
Given two equally rational alternatives we are free to select either and different people will select different ones. A theist would likely choose “God created it” whereas an atheist would likely choose “it has always existed” or one might just make a choice and thereby decide whether they want to be a theist or atheist, this is in fact how I went from being atheist to theist.
Logically God a creator might be, could be, just conceivably could be true, yes? You have to agree else you are a “hard atheist” and most here are “I don’t hold a belief” type of atheist.
This is really nothing major, there are reasonable rational reasons for at least considering God, and some accept that and some don’t.
But which exact god do you mean? You seem to have no idea of its properties or capabilities, or, at least are unwilling to share your description. You capitalise “god” as in reference to the god of the bible texts and Qu’ran…is that what you mean or do you have your own description?
2 Likes
Really? God created it is rational? Even un the face of that you cannot demonstrate god actually influenced the bible? Making the validity of which, questionable at absolute best! And thats being extraordinarily generous!
I would grant there may be things beyond the purview of science that may be a factor upon reality, but absolutely zero of it links to a god(s).
My answer is there is no good reason to believe that there are and god(s). I would concede as above, that something beyond the purview of science may be involved in the underlying reality we all share. However, there is absolutely no reason to believe in the super natural or deities.
If god or God was captialised, it’ll just be my phone auto correcting etc… i really couldn’t care if its spelt either way.