This is stooping to a new low. So in your fairytale world of scientism those who challenge consensus are wrong, cannot be right, are not “justified” to do so, at least that’s what you words above seem to equate to.
You have far more in common with those who persecuted Galileo than you do with Galileo, God the irony!
Perhaps but he is attacking an argument I did not make, he is responding to something I said by attacking an argument I did not make, this is known as a strawman fallacy FYI.
Really, I could write a book on some of the characters here. I’d call it The atheists derision of logic.
Nope I was challenging your false assertion, and now you’re mendaciously paraphrasing me, the irony is palpable.
That risible piece of mendacious trolling is pretty ironic, but I’d bet my house you don’t know why. It seems you are angry that your creationist appeal to authority has been challenged, you could try submitting me to the Inquisition, as your lot did to Galileo when they didn’t like his facts contradicting their religious dogma and doctrine. Luckily religious superstition is an offer I am in a position to refuse nowadays.
She, and she is attacking a type of apologetics that attacks science, which you are using. You’re also trying to claim scientific evidence based on appeal to authority fallacies, as what you claim is scientifically justified is in no way accepted by the wider scientific community, not surprising when the goal is to point to something we don’t fully understand and insist this justifies leaping to the superstitious claim an unevidenced deity did it all, using inexplicable magic. That doesn’t sound like science to me, but then I’m not scientifically trained.
She, never said you’d made that specific argument, you are lying.
I did not paraphrase you, I deduced a conclusion from what you wrote. If you say X > Y then I can conclude that you also mean Y < X that’s not paraphrasing its simple boolean logic.
What your wrote is pretty indisputable, it’s meaning is - without consensus there can be no justification.
Look:
If you want to pretend it means something else then tell us what that something else is.
That’s a lie, and you asked people to quote you verbatim if they disagreed I gave three examples, and you paraphrased one of them mendaciously, after crying that @CyberLN had done this to you, your hypocrisy is being laid bare here. Here is your post:
Now here was my first example, that you have ignored of course quelle surprise.
Here is my second example that you ignored:
As for your lie that you had not paraphrased me lets expose that then:
My response there verbatim, and now here is yours:
So you changed my challenge to your claim that it was scientifically justified being dubious, because there is not a scientific consensus to support it, to a dishonest straw man claim that no one can be right or justified in challenging a consensus, which I never remotely said. So a rather silly lie on top of your duplicitous straw man.
That is a verbatim quote of my post, can you highlight where you think I claimed no one could be right or justified in challenging a consensus? Which was the straw man paraphrased version you offered, here it is again then.
I’ll try dumbing this down with bullet points then:
I never said “those who challenge a consensus cannot be right”
I never said those who challenge a consensus are not justified to do so"
Those were lies you made up, like the lie you had not paraphrased me, which everyone can now see for themselves.
You wrote:
Does that not imply that without a consensus we can definitely conclude there was no scientific justification? Yes, it does, they are identical.
If there was scientific justification then there would of necessity have to be consensus.
Yet you continue to hurl insults and abuse at me, calling me a “liar” which is rather uncivil.
Paraphrasing is dangerous or open to abuse when it can change the semantics of what someone said, but rewriting something that doesn’t change the meaning is absolutely fine we do in mathematics all the time.
Yes, but that was what I said, not the paraphrased version you assigned to me.
Are you suggesting we forget about a consensus and people get to pick the subjective opinions of anyone who shares their subjective beliefs? I don’t really see that working, either way that’s not the point since you did paraphrase me, it was done dishonestly to misrepresent what I had said, you then you lied by claiming you had not paraphrased me at all, and everyone can read through this pitiful exchange to see that this is the case.
I have in fact shown remarkable restraint given your mendacity, and if you find being called a liar insulting I can only suggest you stop lying.
Liar, you absolutely paraphrased me right there.
Those were lies you made up, and again anyone can see my post bears no resemblance to the bs you made up, and that it is clearly paraphrased.
I never remotely made the three claims you assigned me, and can only assume this sorry display is to move away from my request that you evidence your claim that “there are many good reasons to believe the gospels were supernatural in origin.” Since you have shamelessly refused to offer even one good reason, and all you offered was textbook argumentum ad populum fallacy about biblical scholars and theologians holding a subjective belief they were.
As being a former Christian, they just really think it’s true. They never knew how or wanted to apply a good epistemology to what they perceive as evidence. I went through this process when I became an engineer, and it is why I am an atheist now. For them it is “obvious” that the universe was created. All sorts of little, stupid stuff looks like evidence to them. They don’t recognize that it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to just assume the source like that, just as an example. They are living in an intellectually challenged bubble.
Generally my minimal goal in talking with these people is to get them to learn something of an epistemological nature, even if it is just a couple of logical fallacies. Any improvement we can get on people critically thinking, even small at first, can have large impacts later on.
So what’s your view of John Lennox’s arguments for God?
Present the best you think he has, from what I have observed they’re biased, and irrational.
My question wasn’t addressed to you.
So what? Are you suggesting @Sheldon is not allowed to respond to a comment made on an open forum because you don’t want him to? You’ve responded to all sorts of posts not addressed directly to you. Do you consider ‘the rules’ different for him than you?
I never claimed it was, and this is a public debate forum, anyone may contribute, and FYI my question was addressed to you, can we expect any attempt to answer?
I have no intention of paraphrasing Lennox, if you’ve read him you’ll know his position, if you haven’t then go and do so.
I asked @TheMagus because I want to discuss what he said, with him.
You implied he has sound argument for a deity, and I am not researching that claim for you. Either offer something to support your assertion, or I will draw the obvious inference you cannot.
if you read my post you would see this is redundant.
So what? Again this is an open forum, if you think Lennox has any evidence or arguments more compelling than what you have presented then offer them, otherwise this is just looks like an appeal to authority fallacy. We already know theists find religious apologetics compelling, you have brought your beliefs to an ostensibly atheist forum, the standard for credulity here need not reflect that of any theists. I watched lennox debate and he had nothing but the usual irrational rhetoric I’ve seen countless times before.
I never said a word about Lennox’s claims and I never appealed to him as authority. I said what I said
If you want to share your view on any of his claims or arguments go ahead and do so.