Ah yes the endless repetition of the logical fallacy approach, impressive.
Me “It’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.”
scmike “No it isn’t, you are, nah nah nah nah…and I don’t care anyway, coz goddidit all, so there.”
Pffft ludicrous, I mean how can that compete with a completely unevidenced magic sky fairy form a bronze age superstition?
Sure. Or are you suggesting that the laws of Nature are something else than what they are? Or maybe that you can change how the universe works by uttering some pretend logic? Well, that’s not how things work. The laws of nature are what they are, and we don’t know why. If you think you know why the laws of nature are the way they are, and can prove it, well…instant Nobel Prize in physics. But you see (and this has obviously escaped your attention), all we can do is observe Nature, and formulate natural laws that describes how Nature works. I.e. we can describe HOW Nature works. We can, within the framework of known science, make predictions. But that follows from the laws of physics we have already formulated. Which were formulated from observing Nature. And how those natural laws originated, we don’t know. And you don’t know either.
LOL.
Another lie, the starting point for atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities.
Which means atheists necessarily presuppose that God is not the Ultimate Authority for their reasoning when they argue against the position that He is (like you are doing right now). The problem is, you cannot live consistently with your professed beliefs, as you continue to appeal to concepts (logic, truth, knowledge, the validity of your senses and reasoning) that cannot be accounted for apart from the God of the Bible. That much has and will be made obvious here.
All humans die,
Where have you observed all humans (past, present, and future) such that you can justify that claim? If you have not observed it, then you must concede that you accept it (and everything else you claim to be true) on blind faith alone. Of course, accepting things on blind faith is but one form of irrationality.
.
In every single example
Where have you observed every single example (past, present, and future) such that you can prove the claim? I’d like to have a look myself!! LOL!
Same as everyone else’s,
Great! Since the only way you and everyone else can ever rationally justify the validity of their senses and reasoning is by appealing to God’s direct and indirect revelation that they are a wonderful gift from Him, then I guess there is nothing left to argue. QED.
just subject my reasoning to the principles of logic, and this will demonstrate when it is valid and when not
Eeeeeeeeeep! Since you use your senses and reasoning to recognize, perform, and evaluate any logical demonstration you are indeed arguing the equivalent of ‘I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid’. That is definitely not the way everyone else properly justifies the validity of their senses and reasoning, as it is woefully irrational.
As such, your position is reduced to absurdity as it is viciously circular and destroys the possibility of knowledge and truth in your worldview. Of course, any worldview which is based upon beliefs that undermine the very concept of truth, knowledge, and rationality cannot be true. I am satisfied with that.
Just as everyone here has demonstrated your religious bilge is irrational, because you used known logical fallacies.
Problem is, if you can’t know that your senses and reasoning are valid, then you certainly can’t know any of that ( or anything else for that matter). As such, each of your claims is reduced to arbitrary conjecture, which is but a form of personal opinion. What is that to me?
.
Great, when will you start doing that??
Done and done. We have seen what absurdities the contrary position leads to and it ain’t pretty (e.g. ‘the universe is what it is’, ‘laws of the universe are just the way they are’, ‘I sense and reason that my senses and reasoning are valid’, etc.). In fact, Yikes!!!
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
See above.
Time to put that canard to rest.
Can you explain, as Paul described, why a charged particle has a certain spin? Of course not, at present we have no way of knowing, only that we are fortunate that our universe has this set of physics. Personally, since I have no data to work with, I liken it to a roll of the dice, and it is just the way they are.
1 Like
Actually, atheist do not presuppose, you are the one making this fallacy. You are the one presupposing this “God is the Ultimate Authority” thingy. All it takes for you to win your argument is to prove a god exists. You are the one making the claim, all we are doing is stating “I am not convinced, prove it to me”.
You still have not addressed my hypothesis on green men inside the Sun. They are there, you just have faulty reasoning until you accept my presupposition.
It is comically ironic when I use your very argument tactic against you.
The scientific consensus is that from when homo sapiens arose ( 550,000 to 750,000 years ago) that approximately 117 billion have lived. And of all of those 117 billion, each one has died. That’s pretty compelling evidence and powerful numbers to draw a conclusion from, that everyone dies.
2 Likes
I tried this once. In my twenties. Had 3 boys. Turned out their terrible twos, threes and fives made me regret I made them. I drowned them in the bathtub 
. Then I regretted that so I put a coloured sticky note on my bedroom door to remind myself not to do it again.
Genesis 6:5-7 …The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth–men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air–for I am grieved that I have made them.”
Genesis 8. Then Noah built an altar to the Lord(S) and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean(T) birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings(U)on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma(V) and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground(W) because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.(X) And never again will I destroy(Y) all living creatures,(Z) as I have done.
Genesis 9 13 I have set my rainbow(R) in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow(S) appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant(T) between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.(U)
PS… I mercifully let my two cats and three dogs live though 
- maybe I didn’t do it right
PSS Bronze Age goat herders didn’t know about light refraction sooooo god puts the rainbow there 
2 Likes
[quote=“David_Killens, post:166, topic:2318, full:true”]
Actually, atheist do not presuppose,
Um, THAT statement is a presupposition about atheists. Well, looks like atheists do presuppose things after all!
Hate to say I told you so, but… 
A component in the makeup of an atheist is that they do not accept claims blindly. As you do. As you presuppose.
To get to the heart of this topic, if you can convince us by means other than your present failed debate tactics, that there is a god and that it is the ultimate authority, guess what? I would change my position.
So go ahead, change my mind, convert me.
1 Like
So… in my thirties I had 3 more boys (to replace the bad ones) BUT now I knew that “boys will be boys”. So I wrote down some rules and stuff for them to follow. Gave them each a copy. Now they argue and fight incessantly about who’s right. They stopped asking me for clarification (I just blankly stare at them). They know it’s important to get it right because if they don’t I’m setting them on fire 
for their 18th birthday 
.
Don’t worry! They know I love them…
In a Christian worldview it is, as God has revealed the universal nature of man such that we can know it for certain. However, apart from Divine revelation from one who knows everything, how can you know what happened in the unobserved past or that ALL people everywhere have died or will die? You, like Sheldon, accept this purely on blind faith.since you have not observed it. Unless, of course, you want to posit that you have another way of gaining knowledge, in your worldview, apart from your senses and reasoning…? Crystal ball perhaps? Lol.
117,000,000,000 to 1, that is all it takes, provide that one example and you have proven me wrong. If you can not, I am very comfortable with those numbers.
I do understand the black swan fallacy, but since we have now explored this entire planet, that removes the black swan fallacy.
Nope, that’s just another attempt to use an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to reverse the burden of proof. If you think repetition of this like some sort of mantra, is going to make it less irrational, then you’re mistaken.
Have I professed any beliefs? Care to quote them? The efficacy of logic is manifest, it needs no deity, nor any superstitious beliefs, that is axiomatic since it works without it.
Did I claim I’d observed it? I’be never observed my great great grandparents, but they were real, and they died, ipso facto they were mortal.
Nope, objective evidence suffices for me. I’ve never seen a dinosaur either, but there is sufficient objective evidence they once existed.
Irony overload.
Why do keep making the dense assertion one must observe something in order for it to be sufficiently evidenced? I never witnessed the D day landings, are you saying it’s just a faith based belief they happened?
Since when is unevidenced bombast rational?
Priceless, you think using logic is irrational, you are outdoing yourself here champ.
Meaningless gibberish.
Logical fallacies exist, and you used them, it is a basic principle of logic that nothing that contains a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational, ipso facto your religious bilge is by definition irrational.
Rubbish, you’re trolling was never very good, but now it is woeful.
So none then, t’was ever thus.
Your insisting that these things can’t be accounted for apart from the “god of the bible” just isn’t true. Many other religions say the same thing about their god/gods and you’ve just chosen the christian version. We’ve actually got good evidence of where the modern concept of logic came from, and also how much of the knowledge modern society needs to function came about. All the work of man.
1 Like
You do not know what I am thinking. Once again your are presupposing with a very weak argument. I have never given up on my quest for a god, it is only in the last few years have I become firmly convinced that every major mainstream god defined by humans does not exist.
Awww, that so nice, and so cute. I will pray that you wife’s bruises heal before the weekend is over and that you do not suffer a server hangover tomorrow.
If you do not catch this sarcasm, I am presupposing you are a drunk and wife-beater.
David did not make a general claim about atheists, he merely refuted your straw man fallacy that atheism had to presuppose anything. So this is of course, yet another straw man fallacy.
Did you observe the battle of Waterloo? Are you saying it didn’t happen, or that you can only have blind faith it happened? The more you repeat this idiotic lie, the funnier it gets. I don’t need faith at all, objective evidence will do just fine.
1 Like
Evidence for reality (demonstrable evidence) is convincing.
You’ve clearly stated that you won’t engage with debate and logic AND your ignorance is irritating.
Your form of “persuasion” is preaching and a stubborn clinging to self-made beliefs for which there is no logic nor demonstrable evidence.
This form of trolling is NOT welcome.
YOU are receiving a 3 month “time out” so you can read, but not engage with posters. Perhaps you’ll take the time to learn about fallacies (false arguments) and reassess how honest your beliefs are.
1 Like
Nope, you lied when you edited out half of David’s sentence, as he was making a specific claim, not the general one you’ve lied about, and White’s claim is based on her evidence of atheist’s who demonstrate your claim is bs, no doubt. Not that I’m not prepared to defer to your expertise where bs is concerned, that is a given, no presupposition required.
How’s the troll meter looking on this one?
Already silenced… see above
2 Likes