You are making exactly my original point… We are using the scientific method which is fallacious according to post hoc fallacy… and we use it in our daily life with no problem… Yet when you are presented with an overwhelming evidence of a creator like fine-tuning of the universe, you start calling out fallacies ignoring that your entire lifestyle is built on fallacies… Dont you see the contradiction? I think you should be the one setting down his phone.
Oh - this is where your mind went.
OK. I also presented the vast unlikeliness of your personal existence (yet here we are; living evidence).
You presented facts of the likelihood of the universe.
I accept facts and didn’t dispute the numbers you provided. I’m fine with that 
.
I didn’t call out fallacies over this. That misrepresents me.
I just didn’t accept your conclusion of “designer based fine tuning”.
For instance, I bet you accept “god” always existed and didn’t need a creator - just always was.
So, I accept “energy” (down to quantum) always existed and didn’t need a creator - just always was.
We know “something” has existed as far back as “Planck time (Planck Time | COSMOS). Before that, no one can say. No one.
overwhelming evidence of a creator
No. This is a claim. There is evidence of the natural universe/world and its evolution. There is no evidence of a creator THERE are books and texts written by humans.
You are pulling a Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are rushing to a conclusion before you have all the relevant facts.
OR in your case, unrelated “facts” or your evidence of choice is only in itself a “claim” (not a fact).
Perhaps the
Circular Argument: Or “God of Gaps” needs examination.
Not a claim, this is what our scripture the Quran says. It is the reality of this religion.
Yes, Chistianity was originally peaceful. until people corrupted the scriptures and turned God into a jealous evil being.
That is not true, we dont know the reason why we were created. It is Allah’s knowledge that we dont poses.
YOUR book makes a claim. Right. It is the reality of your religion.
ALL religious books make claims. THEY make claims about god.
That is a reality of religion.
The BOOKS and TEXTS are the claims - they are not demonstrable evidence of god. They are a form of evidence to support your belief in your god of choice. I understand that. But by themselves, they are just an assortment of ancient written texts. There are loads of them out there. Various ancient texts. Various ancient gods. Various ancient beliefs and tales and stories. All over the world.
What I am saying is this standard for evidence convinces you, but it does not convince me. It is too low. There is nothing to distinguish all claims based on all books/texts by all men (ancient and new) - get my drift?
Why do theists insist on asking udicrous hypothetical questions like that, as if it isn’t obvious that…
a) You are not demonstrating any evidence.
and…
b) This is an absurd attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
Oh I agree wholeheartedly, theistic belief is entirely based on emotion in my experience, their entirely vapid claims for evidence are axiomatically false.
And why is that? I bet you will cite a fallacy in response. or am I mistaken?
How did you accept this without evidence? Do we have solid empirical evidence on that? Just remember my first sentence
Because you dont really need an evidence to believe in a creator. Since you believe in everything in your life without evidence.
It has been a long discussion, I know there are still differences in opinion but I have to take a leave now. hopefully will come back in another debate room talking about the evolution of humans and why it is a hoax.
Peace.
Dear sheldon, I am sorry I have to take a leave now, but to answer your question simply.
No one can produce any objective evidence for anything in life, science is built on logical fallacies to start with (as I have argued in the replies above) so it is a question designed to never be answered.
Yes, axiomatically false, just like science or literally anything in our lives. I am glad we agree.
That’s not evidence, that’s an unevidenced claim. Don’t feel too bad, most theists don’t seem to understand the difference.
That’s not evidence, it’s an unevidenced claim…again…
Correct, why would I assign an unevidenced assumption to an unevidenced deity
?
There it is, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, look it up please, your inference is irrational.
I was born, the same as all other humans, try again…
Mundane. Well supported. Evidenced (demonstrable/repeatable). Sun, light, spectrums, light speed, energy/matter etc (I also included a link regarding “Planck time”)
Extraordinary claim and “supernatural”(nothing in nature like it). Nothing repeatable nor demonstrably evidenced.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH HA HA …
A six year old child with a box of crayons could have done a better job “fine tuning” a universe.
The idea that this poisounous. lethal, temporary, deadly, disease ridden, bit of rock, floating in the vasness of deadly space was fine tuned for us is ludicras. We happen to be one of the forms of life capable of surviving in such a mess of bullshit and when the bullshit changes, we will be no more, unless we can find a way to survive. Perhaps we can find another small speck of dust in the fastness of the universe that your god has magically designed just for us. The fine tuning argument is one of the stupidest arguments any theist has ever attempted. Utter and complete stupidity from the ground up.
I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe you.
According to the Harry Potter books wizards are real.
Claims, not confirms. Just as Harry Potter doesn’t confirm Wizards are real.
Objective scientific rigour, since you ask.
No one or nothing? Either way this is a straw man argument, and it doesn’t remotely evidence a deity.
It already is Hostile to life. The “in any form” assumption is as hilarious as it is idiotic.
All living things evolved, this is a scientific fact, we don’t yet know how life originated on this planet, so any assertions you are simply assuming are an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. Again I encourage you to learn what that means.
So is Harry Potter if you choose to assume the unevidenced claim is true. I don’t believe either claim, and for the same reason, there is no objective evidence to support them.
It still has nomobjective evidence for any deity or anything supernatural, or else this long diatribe of yours would have opened with it.
As much as I’d love to take some stranger on the the internet’s opinion that they’ve bested the entire scientific world. I don’t believe you, and it doesn’t help your unevidenced archaic superstion anyway, as evolution could be entirely falsified today, and it wouldn’t evidence your religious beliefs at all.
That’s just another unevidenced assumption.
No it isn’t, logic is simply a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, and several of your arguments have violated those principles in this very thread.
You don’t even recognize common logical fallacies, several of which you’ve used here, so again I don’t believe you.
Hence your beliefs are not supported by logic. QED
Nope, because we can explain and evidence the cause. Just another example of your ignorance of even the most basic principles of logic.
A post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, like the ones you’ve used, make an unevidenced leap from correlation to causation.
Science requires sufficient objective evidence, so again your embarrassingly wrong here.
As I’ve pointed out, you’re embarrassingly wrong. No offence, but It’s clear you don’t have even a basic understanding of either logic or science.
I suggest you look up common logical fallacies, and learn what they mean
The scientific method requires objective evidence, common logical fallacies clearly are not supported by objective evidence, they involve flawed argument.
Now you’re simply resorting to childish sophistry. It hardly bodes well for your beliefs, especially given the irrational arguments and unevidenced assumptions that have entirely made up your offerings thus far.
Running away is so common a tactic now it’s also pretty transparent.
You seemt to be confusing things here. And lack knowledge of experimental science, and science in general. Experimental science follows a set of protocols where other influences and inferences are taken into account. So, while experimental science is not the same as the field of logics, you can make sound and valid inferences that advance knowledge.
Since you are writing on this forum, you use some kind of computer equipment – either a phone, a tablet or a computer. Computer equipment is the result of centuries of science, both theoretical and experimental. If this process had been fallacious, your computer equipment would probably not have been developed. You are dealing in sophistry and wishy-washy semantic nitpicking.
Also, be aware that the same type of shitty argumentation you use here can be used back towards your Koran, your imaginary Allah and her claimed prophet Mohammed.
See above.
Uhm no. Read it again, but slowly this time. It illustrates how religion does not revise its world view in response to new knowledge.
Like in this comic strip about evolution vs. creationism:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This is a conclusion that assumes that if ‘A’ occurred after ‘B’ then ‘B’ must have caused ‘A.’
Fire is the visible effect of the process of combustion – a special type of chemical reaction. It occurs between oxygen in the air and some sort of fuel. The products from the chemical reaction are completely different from the starting material.
The fuel must be heated to its ignition temperature for combustion to occur. The reaction will keep going as long as there is enough heat, fuel and oxygen. This is known as the fire triangle.
The science explaining fire does not involve assumption, unlike the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc.
1 Like
Empirical science is fallacious. Science isn’t about proof/truth. It’s about making predictions of measurements, and preforming experiments to measure those predictions.
ewwww. My bad. We get to do the fucking asshole Allah. The worm eating piece of shit in the Quaran.
The Child molesting “Thighing” asshole that molests six year old girls and fucks 9 year olds.
f someone murders your slave, then you get to kill one of his. If it was a male that was killed, you kill one of the killer’s male slaves. If a female, you kill a female. Murder for murder. Slave for slave. It all works out swell with Allah’s wondrous rules. [2:178]
- So the earthquake seized them." Allah killed the disbelievers with an earthquake, for their disbelief. [7:90-91]
Unbelievers are never safe from Allah’s wrath. [7:95-99]
Allah … cut the root of the disbelievers." (Penises) Allah destroyed the unbelievers. [8:7] Allah loves a good penis.
-
On the last day Allah will kill all the disbelievers (and then he will torture them forever in hell). [10:45] Because he is a piece of shit.
-
“Every nursing mother will forget her nursling and every pregnant one will be delivered of her burden and thou (Muhammad) wilt see mankind as drunken, yet they will not be drunken, but the Doom of Allah will be strong (upon them).”
When the doom of Allah comes, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and men will act like they are drunk. -
“Among mankind is he who disputeth concerning Allah without knowledge, and followeth each froward devil will mislead him and will guide him to the punishment of the Flame.”
The devil will guide some to the punishment of the Flame.[22:3-4] -
“He who disputeth concerning Allah without knowledge or guidance or a scripture giving light, Turning away in pride to beguile (men) from the way of Allah. For him in this world is ignominy, and on the Day of Resurrection We make him taste the doom of burning.”
Those who turn from the way of Allah will face ignominy in this world and the doom of burning in the -
Whoever thinks that Allah will not give Muhammad victory should go hang himself. [22:15]
-
“There are many unto whom the doom is justly due. Allah doeth what he will.” [22:18]
-
Disbelievers will wear garments of fire, boiling fluid will be poured on their heads, their bellies and skin will be melted, they will be tormented with iron hooks, and when they try to escape they will be driven back with the taunt: Taste the doom of burning. [22:19-22]
IT TAKES RELIGION TO GET A GOOD PERSON TO BELIEVE INSANE SHIT.
Umm, actually he did not.
He made the same point as I." In any case, it surely is not my problem."
Which it is not.
Your argument is based on a fatuous claim you can’t demonstrate to be true. IE what many/most/any atheist might do.
The point you’ve actually made is that you are arrogant, ignorant presuppositional apologist. The latest in a long line to have found their way here. The same drivel which has been spouted by your ilk here ad nauseum.
Bored now.
1 Like
Oh dear. No I did not “make your point for you.”
Let me put it another way for you: The clouds suddenly part and this geezer is sat on a throne in the sky. How do YOU identify it as your particular god of choice?
Why should I believe you?
What if we took it the other way?
What if the sky opened up and instead of seeing Allah (I won’t use “God” in this context, because you are referring to a specific god, not a general sense of a god.), you see moving, sentient, intelligent darkness descending to Earth? Would you start to believe in Erebus, the primordial god of darkness?
I have a very strong feeling you wouldn’t, so why would you expect anything different of people who don’t believe in Allah?
1 Like
Skeptic alarm at 9!
(I’m guessing that statistic was just made up)