Argument from assertion fallacy, yet again. You can’t simply assert there’s evidence, what is it, and how does it evidence any deity? All you’ve been able to offer thus far is argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.
Hysterically wrong. You do know about gravity don’t you, and how gravity holds planets in orbit around the sun?
Here’s a clue, nothing actually rises, it’s a metaphor.
So what, how does that evidence a deity? Its just another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Neither do you or any theist, nice god of the gaps fallacy again.
You’ve useed the spurious assumption of design before, and as I pointed out then, we know things are designed from objective evidence, and because designed things don’t occur in nature. Not because an ancient superstition asserts it.
Why do you think repeating known fallacies will work in a debate?
Good, because my last response is one you should rightfully expect. When you are being purposefully obtuse to hold onto your belief system, at the expense of your own reason, expect to be laughed at.
Wrong, I see them, I believed them, I accessed them, I rejected them.
You on the other hand, see them, believe them, defend them without accessing them first…so, out of ignorance, reject anything contradicting your unsubstantiated belief. Really, not something to laugh at for you…but for me, it’s hilarious.
Listen Einstein, no matter how unrealistic this sounds to your few religiously soaked neurons, “proof” simply doesn’t exist…there can only be facts and evidence that lead you to certain conclusions.
The fact is, you have zero objective evidence for your belief system. So, we can conclude you are failing miserably at the basic human trait of reason.
Because of said failure, we can conclude that certain tools, like science, cause cognitive dissonance among those few irrational neurons you do have, to cause you to fallaciously attack an innate evidentiary process.
Which in turn, leads me to conclude you are deluded. You know, believing in something despite a complete lack of objective evidence.
Yet, you rail on about a creator stating a whole universe of evidence, and then never quantify your statements with objective evidence. Do you even know the functional difference between subjective and objective evidence? Don’t answer that…it was a rhetorical question. Circular reasoning based on an unsubstantiated irrational premise, is your forte.
That’s correct…not only because I have built one myself, but because of 2 Pi r and half bxh.
Can you tell me how god works?..oh, oh yes…in mysterious ways.
He has zero evidence full stop, he has not offered anything at all, just endlessly repeating the same logical fallacies that you cannot disprove his imaginary deity. He has steadfastly refused to tell us how this evidences a deity, he can’t obviously.
I would argue that the both the scientific method along with falsifiability is an epistemology and faith is an epistemology. Saying that science sometimes gets stuff wrong is different than saying the methodology for finding truth (epistemology) is wrong. If you find something wrong with these statements, find it with the epistemology. One of the key parts in the scientific method that is not found in religion is the idea of updating and maintaining a dynamic model of reality. When I get new information, my model of reality will change with the goal being to have the best model of reality I possibly can. Think of fallibility as a tool that prevents you from putting things in your model that don’t belong there. Religion on the other hand says we have our static model of reality, and it is always right. The more a person adheres to that static model, the more of a fundamentalist they are.
One problem I’ve seen is that too many religious people conflate faith with probability. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. That is no proof at all. We have records of 1000s of years-worth of sun rises and sets. Claiming that an invisible organ like the soul exists when we have 0 measurements of it is very different than for something we’ve measured 10,000s of times like the sun rising. This is a false equivalency that religious people make to try to equate their belief in something low probability and make is seem like it is just as valid as other people’s high probability assertions based on actual measurements. They are not the same at all. Is the probability of the sun rising tomorrow the same as Mohamed cutting the moon in half?
We do not know where the matter and energy come from, but just saying that god must have done it is an assumption that we have never measured. Anything that is not measurable is automatically not falsifiable which is why it gets rejected from my model. You would have to assume that some god is the cause of this and you can never remove it from your model until you want to. Can you prove to me that Mohamed didn’t cut the moon in half with a sword and then god put it back together? No? It’s because it is unfalsifiable. You will never be able to prove that to people who believe it. The fact is you cannot prove any one of the 4000 religions completely wrong. Faith is bad because it allows people to put things in their model that they cannot directly measure. Faith is why there are over 4000 religions.
What are you talking about ? . We are having this debate because of the wonders of scientific discovery . The idea that people of faith in the main are anti science as I’ve read in some posts is flat out ridiculous. The issue I have is not with science , it’s people that use it as a blunt force instrument to try hammer the God question into submission. Science only reveals God . The Falsifiability/ Evidence cudgel with some fallacy or other thrown in for good measure are boring tired arguments that are relics from another time and don’t serve the Atheist argument at all . The repeated demand for evidence is numbing . The whole of creation is prima fascia evidence for a creator . Science doesn’t do causation and yet you who claim science has providence over what can and can’t be considered as the cause of creation unless you get a sign that can be explained scientifically are not merely stacking the deck , you are losing at your own game
It certainly does work like a champ . Science can’t tell you Why it works like a champ . It just assumes it’s so without any logical reason why it’s that way .
Something that is prima facie, is something that you are assuming is true, specifically without evidence. If you have evidence for something, it isn’t prima facie.
More importantly: just because you assume something is true by prima facie, does not mean the rest of us assume that.
How many times have we told you that science isn’t logical. Math is logical, science is not (and that is a good thing!). I can assure you; that if you restrict yourself to only things that are logical, you won’t even be able to get started in science.
I kind of made this mistake myself in college; thinking I could just get some easy science credits in chemistry based on my math skills. I got a very rude awakening.
This is very poor trolling, though trolls often forget the lies they use.
Hahahahahhahahhahahahhaha, it’s funny when he tries bless him.
The rest is just the same tired argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a god of the gaps polemic, with the usual moronic attacks on the scientific method because it can’t detect or examine what does not exist, and that is any evidence for any deity.
Your ignorance is truly astounding, but here are some facts that will advance your knowledge into the 21st century.
Logic was one of modern science’s precursors.
Scientific results do not contradict any of the principles of logic.
You include at least one known logical fallacies in almost every post.
Scientific results are not based on any assumption, they’re a measurable demonstrable fact.
Nothing can be asserted as rational if it uses or is based on a known logical fallacy, such claims are irrational by definition, and you have done this in almost every post.
Asserting a belief is validated because it cannot be disproved or contradicted with another claim is the very definition of the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, how many times have you used that fallacy now? Even after having it explained, which is rank dishonesty.
