Except that “it’s always existed” is far more likely to be a reasonable claim for something that we know exists courtesy of evidence, than "a fantastic magic entity that’s only ever been asserted to exist was responsible ".
You really are an amateur at this, aren’t you?
Wow wow, wait a minute, are you saying that something we know is possible, is a more plausible thing to assert exists than something we don’t know is possible?
Blimey this is news…well only to some theists and @Sherlock-Holmes of course.
Well, frankly, yes, I think that might be what he is saying. I realize the challenge(s) this might present to the logically impaired.
.
.
Edit to give my friend the “Captain” a call
That’s a matter of opinion and I’d not venture an opinion about probabilities without some metrics to support it.
This is more specious hand waving, the oft used “probably” without a hint of how that probability is calculated or estimated.
The claim “it’s always existed” is untestable so on what ground do you assign it a probability at all?
As opposed to the rigorous testing used to determined an unevidenced deity using inexplicable magic did it.
As a bare minimum those questions need an expansive, accurate and objective explanation, before they a deity is dems ontrated as possible, let alone plausible.
Many of the questions you ask are reasonable but unimportant, many people have no difficulty considering these kinds of questions. Like I already showed you, almost all of the scientists that drove the scientific revolution were theists, they would have had no trouble with those questions.
Each time you do this little tap dance, it reinforces the fact you’re holding an empty bag, while claiming it had has magic beans in it.
Ask not, why is the bag empty, ask why you can’t see what lies within.
It’s empty, even you admit it. I don’t see anything in it, because all you have is irrational rhetoric, and dishonest evasion. every single time you’re asked to demonstrate there is anything in it.
If that’s not an empty bag, what the fuck does an empty bag look like. Evasion and not one single word when asked to explain how a deity is possible, an admission you don’t know where it came from, an evasive straw man when asked how this deity is supposed to have used supernatural power to create anything, risible evasion when asked where this supernatural powers comes from, vapid evasion when asked to explain how any deity created the universe, laughable nonsense…
Empty
adjective
That perfectly describes what you responded with there.
It’s possible because it has been demonstrated to be possible. ****So again, ****
Do you see parts? Choose any “part.” Just pick a part and explain how that part is possible. I’m not seeing any parts.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , And how did you get this amazing power to look outside the universe? How did you determine the universe had an outside? How did you glean these amazing insights? You are so smart. Have you thought of writing a paper about your journeys outside the universe?
How am I supposed to take this shit seriously. Clearly, Shirley is a troll.
All he will do is revert back to his argumentum ad ingoranitam fallacy, the universe cannot be a cause for itself, but then neither can a deity in that case, and since he says he doesn’t know where his chosen deity comes from…it is only he that is not seeing a problem there.
Do you think he can demonstrate the universe was caused? And, if there was a cause, how did he rule out all possible natural causes? We know that which is natural exists. Can he demonstrate the existence of the unnatural?
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on. You have a track record of venturing opinions unsupported by metrics or anything else.
Oh by the way, on the basis of what “metric” do you think a merely asserted cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, is “more likely” than a material entity exhibiting the requisite persistence?
I leave that to experts in this field such as you.
Once again, I leave fake “probability” calculations to creationists, who have polluted the arena of discourse therewith for sometime.
Once again, what “metric” did you use to determine that a merely asserted cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, is “more likely” than a material entity exhibiting the requisite persistence?
Mere blind assertion on your your part. Though it’s amusing seeing you try to hand-wave away the possibility of an eternally existing material entity with your usual hypocritical apologetics, while trying to pretend that an untestable cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology is purportedly “reasonable”.
Keep digging that hole.
I didn’t assign a quantitatively computed probability, I merely stated that something already demonstrated to exist was far more likely to possess relevant persistence, than a fantastic magic entity that has only ever been asserted to exist, and within the pages of a fatuous goat herder mythology at that.
Oh, and since your cartoon magic man is asserted within that mythology to possess contradictory and absurd properties, the probability of it existing is zero on that basis.
Am I to take it you disagree with me, that the proposition the universe has always existed can be tested? can you outline the nature of such a test please? (reaches for his lab notebook and pen as he eagerly anticipates a profound scientific breakthrough from our resident polymath).
You misunderstand, you can rule out “natural” anything because the question includes that, where did “naturalness” come from? those things that make science possible, how can their presence be explained?
How can there be natural causes for nature?
Are you even serious?
That is a dumbest question I have ever heard. Especially coming from someone who thinks that god did it.
What is a god’s cause for godness?
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, disbelieving your claim need not involve making a contrary claim. This is an error you seem unable to stop repeating.
Yet you think you can posit a deity, even after admitting you don’t know where it came from, and of course we know natural phenomena are possible, you couldn’t demonstrate anything to support the belief a deity is possible or anything supernatural, seeing the problem yet?
I never presented an argument Sheldon. I did ask a question though, a reasonable question too.
What’s your objection to me positing a deity? would you prefer to posit magic perhaps? or maybe the more fashionable “it came from nothing” yes, these are so much more compelling aren’t they!