You responded, you offered no explanation. If there is a supernatural EXPLANATION for the origin of the universe **as you claimed. ** Then explain it, if you cannot then it demonstrably is not an explanation.
Then explain it please, or have tth integrity to refer to it as a subjective belief, and not an explanation.
In the beginning God created…that is the explanation.
That’s a subjective claim, it has no explanatory powers, you claimed there was a supernatural EXPLANATION for the presence of the universe. Here:
So what is it?
FUUUUUUUCK!!!.. Fuck-fuck-fuck-fuck-FUUUUUUCK!.. My brand new Irony Meter just exploded! 
We’re getting a new shipment at the end of the month. Deep breath….
You can borrow mine, but only as a paper weight, as it’s fucked. 
This was the end for it:
Lost for words, cradling the remnants of my irony meter.
Damn it Sherlock I’m backlogged as it is on repair orders and now this. These meters aren’t cheap either!
If everyone would pay their dues on time, we wouldn’t have these financial issues.
Demonstrate just one true statement that has never been shown to be true. If there were no way to demonstrate it to be true, by what means have you measured it to be true? (I am assuming you are using the word proven incorrectly once again just to make your point.
More semantic bullshit… reminds me of … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc
His bullshit is every bit as vacuous.
Projection time again …
As opposed to your conflating “explanation” with “blind assertion that magic is needed”?
Fixed it for you.
Your blind assertions don’t deserve attention, other than demolition.
Bullshit. There is zero evidence for magic, or a cartoon magic man waving its magic todger about and poofing things into existence. Grow up.
Ta dah, and just like that the stupidity of his claim is exposed. He is again using a positive statement about an unknown to use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
The only rational answer here is I don’t know. This is an unfalsifiable premise, it is designed that way. @Sherlock-Holmes claim demonstrates not only that he still isn’t making rational assertions, but that after 7 months of explanation he still can’t (or won’t) understand this simpe fallacy.
“Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents “a lack of contrary evidence”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.”
Clearly something is considered true or false because it has been demonstrated so. He either can’t or won’t understand this.
Lets take an example from science, tectonic plate shift, prior to understanding this, science considered the notion that continents could move to be unevidenced, so the correct approach is to withhold belief, but keep an open mind and treat the idea as tentative in the light of new evidence.
The error @Sherlock-Holmes is making, and has done from the start, in equating disbelief with a claim something is untrue, that is why he doesn’t see the epistemological line he crossed with that statement.
He keeps claiming his arguments are rational, but keeps making irrational claims. What’s more he keeps asserting atheists and atheism is irrational, but has anyone seen him demonstrate a principle of logic that lacking belief in any deities violates? If so please point it out to me, so that I can scrutinise it and learn from it, NB I don’t mean an irrational claim an individual atheist has made, but by all means point those out as this will help me avoid such errors in reasoning in the future.
Actually, within consistent formal systems of a certain complexity, Gödel proved with his incompleteness theorems that there exist statements that are true, but that cannot be proven true, within that system. Which means that given the formal axiomatic system S, a certain statement X can be true, but you cannot use S to prove it. However, this does not prevent you from proving X using another system S2 that is based on a set of axioms that is not the same as the axioms of S.
Thanks for that, what are the practical applications of the theorem if you don’t mind me asking, does it demonstrate a probability among a group of unknowns of how many might be true or untrue? Forgive my ignorance, but supposing (as I don’t know) that we can say that there are true or valid claims in a group of unknowns, then as @cognostic’s question implied, if one cannot present a single example of a true unknown, what are the practical applications of the theorem? I have encountered a few theists who tout this theorem as supporting their belief in a deity, and I am unclear why, though from experience they do seem to leap on unknowns as if withholding belief from them is irrational, but in fact only claims about a specific unknown seem irrational to me, and disbelieving a claim is not itself a claim that it is untrue, as with atheism for example.
I suppose what I asking /saying is that as individual concepts the truth of the claim remains unknown yes? So as before we withhold belief and keep an open mind, if or until we are able to demonstrate a claim is true or false?
Thanks in advance for your patience and help.
It explains how the universe came to be here, what are you talking about!
Not at all, it makes a subjective claim about a cause, it explains nothing. Watch, a wizard created the universe, that has the exact same explanatory powers your claim did - none.
You’d need to study Godel, here’s the gist of his first incompleteness theorem.
" The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system."
Thank you, I was hoping I wasn’t the only person here familiar with Godel.
So you want to tell me what - for you - constitutes an explanation? This is a term you throw around all the time yet have no idea what it means.
“Explain to me why my house has been flattened” >> “A large rock rolled down the hill and into your house”.
“Explain to me why you made a coffee cake” >> “I felt like it”
“Where did that fabulous lighting system come from” >> “Joe installed it last week”.
See, these are all explanations.
You are correct, as another poster has pointed out. However for context you were responding to this post:
Are you saying Godel’s theorem can demonstrate or prove logically that a soul has objective reality? Only I am very dubious, and I was clearly talking about individual claims when I said it is epistemologically unsound to make assertions about unknowns, that we can logically prove there are true or valid claims in a group of unknowns, doesn’t help us reveal which claims are true and which not, does it? So what relevance does are you asserting Godel’s theorem has for my withholding belief from the claim a soul exists?
What are you smoking? I cannot imagine what I wrote that you are now trying to interpret that way, I’ve not even written the word “soul” either, you are a sneaky one!