I think you’ve wiggled out of enough.
Crack on.
3 Likes
No, you don’t but you insist on asking to see it, if you know nothing can be evidence then why even ask to see it, makes no sense, really atheism makes no sense.
What a stunning surprise.
3 Likes
Oh, but can’t we answer questions in the same order they get asked ? call me old fashioned I know…
You’ve rarely afforded that to others.
Come on, chop chop, quit stalling.
3 Likes
I see this tiresome shite is being peddled yet again …
Bollocks. There exists no observation that supports the assertion that a cartoon magic man exists. This is a fantasy living rent free in the television in your head.
Except that no one who paid attention in class has ever espoused this strawman caricature you keep pedding. Instead, what actually happens, is that new entities and interactions are postulated to underpin the observations in question, and then effort is expended to determine experimentally if those new entities and interactions actually exist, and behave in the described manner.
Indeed, several entities and interactions postulated by scientists in the past, were rejected precisely because the relevant experimental tests failed. Phlogiston and the luminiferous aether being two classic examples, which were abandoned once the experimental tests told us that an alternative needed to be sought. Indeed, in the case of the former, not only did Antoine Laurent Lavoisier have an alternative in mind, in the form of the element Oyxgen, but he had grounds to be suspicious of the phlogiston concept even before the discovery of Oxygen, because he reasoned from basic chemistry that phlogiston would be required to possess negative mass, and would therefore be repelled by gravity instead of attracted.
For someone who claims to “understand theoretical physics”, and has engaged in tiresome bleating about my supposed “deficiencies” in this matter, your failure to understand even the elementary concepts at work here lead to much deep suspicion about your claims.
Bollocks.
What we can infer instead, is that we need to look for a set of well-defined entities and interactions that are amenable to experimental test and verification. “Magic Man did it” fails on this basis.
You are in NO position to question the honesty of others here.
More bullshit. NOT treating unsupported assertions uncritically as fact, is substance writ large. It’s the entire basis of proper discourse.
The only inanity on display here, is your ex recto apologetic fabrications. Along with your duplicitous twisting of the actual statements of others, because you need strrawmen to knock down.
Complete and utter poppycock.
We can reject a belief in X, when X is undefined, precisely because the person asserting X doesn’t know what he’s talking about if he can’t define it!
On the contrary, treating X as true in such circumstances is the REAL vacuity.
Do you need the baby steps here?
Bare faced lie. But you’ve peddled a lot of those.
Oh wait, I seem to recall presenting an exposition on this very topic in the past. Oh look, this is a topic I’ve devoted much attention to in the past here, sample posts covering this (and the business of any “alternative methodology” anyone wishes to bring to the table) being this one, this one, this one which, wait for it, I posted in direct response to one of your posts (such a short memory you have), and this one that covered the topic briefly.
Indeed, in that post of mine answering one of yours, after explicitly stating that we have two methodologies for sorting assertions into true and false propositions, I then explained in detail to you, what steps you need to complete successfully, in order to introduce any third, alternative methodology, viz:
Of course, I’m used to seeing indolence of this sort from mythology fanboys.
Here’s a clue for you … some of us not only have functioning neurons and functioning reasoning, but long memories.
5 Likes
Oh okay, so you have no evidence and can’t prove the existence of a god. Gotcha.
It makes more sense than your bullshit religion does.
1 Like
Give him a moment to watch the latest William Lane Craig apologetics youtube video and he’ll be right back…
3 Likes
Wait, he’s a devotee of Kalamity Kraig?
Oh that speaks volumes if so.
1 Like
Just an assumption based on the apologetics and inability to answer questions.
You’d have no
No, lets answer questions in the order they are asked, no hand waving, no smoke and mirrors just good old fashioned logical discourse.
.
4 Likes
An unprovable statement incidentally, proving a negative and all that. Also all observations are subjective experiences, each observer has their own interpretation so how you can elevate your own relevance and imply to speak for all observers isn’t clear to us.
That’s rather a long winded way of saying that science is reductionist. One again you prove you are a master at using thirty words when three would suffice.
I do understand theoretical physics, it is you who does not, if you want to challenge any statements I’ve made about that subject feel free to do so and we can discuss that publicly here in front of everyone.
So the name calling continues, I admit I am capable of error, I can and sometimes do say things that are untrue, either oversight or misunderstanding sometimes, not often but it does happen, I am human. But your accusation of liar is uncivil, a lie is an intentionally effort to knowingly deceive someone by making false statements.
Oh come on, be a sport… entertain us…
Has your god interacted with the universe?
Ok maybe thats too much… lets try an easier one…
How do you know that god had any influence on scripture?
1 Like
You want to answer question in the reverse order then yes? OK let me ask you this, this is now the newest question and based on your “logic” it should be answered first, so go on then:
I actually want you to tell me why you believe you can recognize evidence for God?
What a stunning surprise
1 Like
Not really, we can infer the moon is made of cheese if it makes us happy. Our inference would just be subjective nonsense of course. Like inferring something exists we cannot explain or objectively evidence, and insisting it get a pass on the best methods we have, based on the assumption that those methods detecting no data is a flaw in them, and not because non-existent things provide no data. All the while anyone who suggests we submit ALL ideas to the same criteria, and not to a special pleading fallacy, is laughably accused of bias.
One simply has to laugh at anything so obviously biased, projecting that bias falsely onto anyone who won’t or can’t share the one single belief they are so emotionally invested in, it is touted as “the reason the universe exists at all”. Anyone with a cursory understanding of species evolution, and even a shred of objectivity, should balk at the sheer arrogance that we are the “main show”, based on an unevidenced archaic creation myth.
Can’t even define ti accurately, but then has anyone encountered any Christian apologetics that did not have at it’s heart an appeal to mystery, mysteries and mysticism are powerful tools to indoctrinate the gullible and suggestible, an obvious example if the RCC keeping their superstitious public ceremonies in Latin, and forbidding the hoi polloi for centuries from owning or reading a bible, often with dire if not fatal consequences.
Great news, I have been waiting now for 7 months for you to give some examples the “host of good reasons” you claimed to have for believing the origins of the anonymous hearsay in the gospels have a supernatural origin? Acn we assume you will addressing that first then?
Indeed, though it would be beyond absurd to suggest they are all equally subjective, I may have mentioned this a few times already, but you seem to miss it in all the excitement of repeating your facile mantra. I have even asked repeatedly if you accept that they are not equally subjective, and since questions are to be answered in the order they’re asked, and that one is also months in the asking, one assumes that one will be slated in at no 2?
The problem is when you skip over the process of addressing those errors and repeat the claim, for example when you asserted that all beliefs must have an initial belief, then stating you don’t know where the initial beliefs come from, and then asserting you had made no comment on how initial beliefs are formed. Despite multiple requests you never clarified or accepted any error, and as I recall resorted to insulting my comprehension skills.
I don’t. I have never seen any presented. I think you mean why do we believe we would be able to recognise evidence for a deity, and I can’t say until it is presented obviously, to suggest an a priori declaration about something that has not been presented is utterly absurd.
1 Like
Just a quick reminder Mr. Sheldon, I’m not responding to you much now because of the incessant abuse and uncivil personal attacks and name calling, carry on as much as you like, I’m done with you.
This is a silly claim. I have told you many times, the scientific method is my (our) rule set, my epistemology. I have asked you multiple times what you use to know truth. Is it the courts? Christians love doing this, they can’t directly measure what they claim, so they try to go to “reasonable doubt”. The problem is that all they have for evidence has to be strung together using fallacies.
@Sherlock-Holmes, why do you say we don’t have rules when you happily ignore when you break them. Your big piece of “evidence” you gave is ensnared in a logical fallacy. Therefore it can’t be considered evidence. So far you have nothing to address this with. None of us are not going to take you seriously if you keep ignoring your own illogical statements. Please respond to my claims above.
3 Likes
You poor thing. You can’t answer his questions or back up your own claims so you stoop to dishonestly playing the victim lol. Can’t say I’m surprised.
1 Like