NEED Help with a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2017, 02:26 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(03-11-2017 09:47 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  If it were true there was no evidence (facts that comport with belief in theism) that might be a reason to decline belief but since you claim you don't know how the universe came about your disrespect of it is just bias. Do you have any evidence mothernaturedidit? I'd be happy to compare facts to facts...

yet you have presented no facts whatsoever, just assertions and empty claims

you haven't even defined what a god is so anything you claim about a god automatically be rejected out of hand without objection

so far the only explanation you given is that YOU cant' conceive of a situation whereby a universe can come into existence without a god.

Quote:It means to me that the existence of the universe and all we observe was caused by mother nature without plan or intent to do so.

and your point is what? that you can't believe it happened that way?

Quote:And you don't know if a universe comes into existence it 'has' to be as it is. Since you don't have any evidence the universe has to be as it is that belief should be disrespected true? It doesn't matter what could explain why if a universe exists it has to have the properties that produce a universe with life? Every argument fact and data fails as far as you and most atheists are concerned...You're not going to admit...I mean say there is any evidence in support of theism. That axiom is sacrosanct. [quote]

no there isn't, you have presented no evidence and have been claiming that the lack of naturalistic explanations automatically proves the theistic claim. You have not even disproved anything

[quote]Its arrogant to think so if in fact it wasn't created for our existence...false humility to think it was caused unintentionally by mindless forces if it was caused by a Creator.

your either lying or just that stupid if you think that this universe was created for us.

its false humility to think that the universe was created by a god with a special purpsoe and with you in mind? pretty sure its the other way around

If this universe was created for us then why is it that 99.99% of it is uninhabitable and deadly to us? if it was created for us then one planet, a sun and moon and a few stars is all that would needed to be created. But this universe is so vast that the idea of any special purpsoe is arrogant and nothing else, it only shows that a creator would have to be incredibly inept, its the equivalent of having a goal of making one drop of oil but making a trillion gallons of water in the process.

Quote:They are necessary to have any reason to believe theism is true. Why do we humans create things which run by themselves? Calling the laws of nature natural explanations assumes the truth of your position that its natural causes all the way down.

because so far there's been no indication that it is by nothing other than natural causes. If god wanted to prove his existence then all he has to be is show himself.
The laws of nature are just description of properties of things interacting with one another with respect to other things and they are true 100% so long as they provide consistent predictions and outcomes. there is no indication of god existing and everything you theists claim that prove god exist is always something that isn't fully understood and you just shove god in as an answer without any evidence.

Name one instance where invoking god as the cause of anything has furthered human knowledge and understanding on a subject?

Quote:I don't think we have any good reason to believe mindless forces would come into existence for some unknown reason and proceed to cause a universe with laws of nature to cause stars, planets solar systems galaxies, dark matter, all necessary for life as we know to occur without plan, intent or an engineering degree...just happenstance. I believe in an intelligent Creator you believe in Mother nature...

except mindless forces can and the only requirement is that they're properties and the conditions present allow for such an occurrence. life in essence is nothing more than mere chemistry


The universe doesn't need to have any requirement for life simply because 99.99% of it is lifeless.

The earth is in a distance where liquid water can exist and its neither too hot or cold... and so what? there are trillions of planets in the universe, the probability of finding more planets that are in the same distance from they're star and with similar conditions are 100%.

stars simply require enough substance that can function as fuel to be clumped together and gravity compressing them into a point where nuclear fusion can take place, the only reason hydrogen is used is simply because we have no indication of anything else existing in the universe before stars were formed, Stars combine hydrogen atoms and make heavier elements, eventually stars run out of fuel and die which provides a source of heavier elements littered throughout the universe. the only reason the earth or any other planet exists is simply because enough stars died and spewed material into space which eventually coalesced into a planets.

Also our sun will in a few billion years get very red and very big at which pointed earth will literally be roasted and made into a floating ball of charcoal as the sun if dying. The very thing that keeps our planet from freezing is the very thing that's gonna cook it. If it was a larger star it would go supernova and blow us to pieces.

The argument that the universe is finely tuned for life might as well be replaced with finely tuned for black holes since the universe spends more time making them via dying stars

and you have not explained why it has to be 1 creator and not 265 creators... what aspect of the universe would change if we made this an argument for polytheism or monotheism?
Also why only god? why not Santa clause or underpants gnomes or the flying spaghetti monster? etc because even if you disproved every naturalistic explanation you'd still have to disprove every other alternative

you have not even explained what created the creator?
and if your answer is that god doesn't need to be created then why can't the universe be the same? all this amounts to is a mundane statement of the obvious that its possible for things to come into existence without a creator.
The only reason theists claim that a god created the universe is because the "holy" book they ascribe to claims that they're god did it otherwise they wouldn't care.

Name one instance in human history where our understanding and knowledge was furthered by invoking god as the answer? there isn't any and how could there be when its doesn't explain anything. God can be replaced with anything else and it would still have the same validity which is zero.

And lets say we did accept god as the cause for the universe existence.. then what? how do you verify any of this? what experiments can you perform to test it?
what predictions and outcomes does it produce? what decisions can I make in the real world with predictable outcomes that will manifest in our experiences? what about our known understanding changes at all? unless you can answer any of this no one is gonna take you seriously

The more one asserts their own unquestioned preconceived beliefs, the more demanding I will be for empirical evidence for I will accept nothing else in place of it
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Ace's post
04-11-2017, 03:48 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 04:43 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(02-11-2017 08:42 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Its not unreasonable to think a fix was in to cause all the conditions necessary for our existence. For naturalism or atheism to be true the laws of physics don't have to exist, stars, planets, solar systems don't have to exist for naturalism to be true. Life and intelligent life doesn't have to exist for naturalism to be true. If we observed a unpredictable chaotic lifeless universe no one would have reason to believe it was intentionally caused by a creator. Why did naturalistic forces cause the conditions necessary for anyone to think theism is true?

I like your question.

I also like Mathilda's response to this question:
(24-10-2017 04:51 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Self-organization. Both intelligence and life have developed because they enable more entropy to be created over time than otherwise. Life is thermodynamically far from equilibrium, yet self-organised by minimising free energy. By reproducing, life can continue to reduce a thermodynamic gradient even after it dies. Intelligence has come about for the same reason. An intelligent agent that can more effectively act over time, and thereby reproduce, can increase global entropy more than a stimulus / response agent. Memory, consciousness, temporal sequence learning, etc. all aid in this.
Do you think entropy is somehow evidence for God?

Life and intelligent life didn't exist in the universe for long stretches of time. If God intended to create them, why did he take so long, and go through such an indirect and convoluted process to do so? Only certain things work, and only certain things that work have longevity. Everything else disappeared long ago.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thoreauvian's post
04-11-2017, 06:24 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 06:52 AM by unfogged.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(03-11-2017 09:47 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
If that was the response it would be quite reasonable. Since neither you or I know for sure we should respect each others beliefs until such time as we do know.


Quote:No. You have a belief that has no evidence behind it. That belief does not deserve a shred of respect.

If it were true there was no evidence (facts that comport with belief in theism) that might be a reason to decline belief but since you claim you don't know how the universe came about your disrespect of it is just bias. Do you have any evidence mothernaturedidit? I'd be happy to compare facts to facts...

Facts that "comport with belief in theism" are not evidence FOR theism, they simply aren't evidence against it. That is an important distinction that you do not appear to grasp.

My disrespect for your beliefs that have no evidence actually supporting them is not bias, it is rationality.

I do not say "mothernaturedidtt". First, I don't personify natural causes because I don't have a need to imagine a thinking agent where none is indicated. Second, as you noted, my response is that I do not know. That's an honest answer and the problem is not that I look around and see that every other thing we have figured out has an apparently natural cause leads me to suspect (not claim) that there are natural answers for the universe is not on par with your claim that there is a supernatural god behind it all. Your claim is unjustified and deserves derision.

Quote:
Quote:That depends on what you mean by "naturalism". That's usually a word I only hear from theists who don't understand the typical skeptics position.


It means to me that the existence of the universe and all we observe was caused by mother nature without plan or intent to do so.

When you show actual evidence of intent I will consider it.

Quote:Its not unreasonable to think a fix was in to cause all the conditions necessary for our existence.

Quote:Yes, that is unreasonable. We do not know that the conditions COULD be different. We do not know that other conditions would not produce other forms of life. We do not know that ours is the only universe. "Fine tuning" fails at every point.

And you don't know if a universe comes into existence it 'has' to be as it is. Since you don't have any evidence the universe has to be as it is that belief should be disrespected true? It doesn't matter what could explain why if a universe exists it has to have the properties that produce a universe with life? Every argument fact and data fails as far as you and most atheists are concerned...You're not going to admit...I mean say there is any evidence in support of theism. That axiom is sacrosanct.

That is gibberish. I did not claim that the universe has to be any way... that's your claim and you are the one that has no evidence that the universe has to be the way it is. The inference I am drawing is that you think it has to be the way it is in order to produce humans but I see no justification in claiming that humans are anything special or were intended to be. That idea is just arrogant. I do not admit that there is any evidence for theism because there isn't any. There is only argument from ignorance.

No axiom is ever sacrosanct. That's a major problem with theism. When faced with a question I can't answer I admit I do not know and look at the evidence and question my assumptions. Theists start with the answer they want and never move from that spot regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

Quote:
Quote:Beyond that, it is incredibly arrogant to think that our existence was necessary or planned or is important.

Its arrogant to think so if in fact it wasn't created for our existence...false humility to think it was caused unintentionally by mindless forces if it was caused by a Creator.

If you are going to insist that there has to be a creator because we had to exist so he had to create a universe just for us and call that humility then you do not know what arrogance or humility are.

Quote:For naturalism or atheism to be true the laws of physics don't have to exist, stars, planets, solar systems don't have to exist for naturalism to be true. Life and intelligent life doesn't have to exist for naturalism to be true. If we observed a unpredictable chaotic lifeless universe no one would have reason to believe it was intentionally caused by a creator. Why did naturalistic forces cause the conditions necessary for anyone to think theism is true?


Quote:None of those things are necessary under theism either. Why did a god create a universe that appears to be run entirely by natural laws with natural explanations for the development of solar systems, life, and intelligence?

They are necessary to have any reason to believe theism is true. Why do we humans create things which run by themselves? Calling the laws of nature natural explanations assumes the truth of your position that its natural causes all the way down.

I think you'd believe theism was true no matter what you saw. That's the porblem. If I assume naturalism all the way down it's because every shred of evidence we have supports that but I admit that what we know does not necessarily apply to the universe itself. I'm just not despaerate enough to imagine an answer or irrational enough to assume it has to be true because I can't explain it any other way.

Quote:
Quote: We have no good reason to believe any of it was intentionally caused by a creator and absolutely no justification for assigning any attributes or desires to that proposed creator. Theism is nothing but wishful thinking piled on fantasy.

I don't think we have any good reason to believe mindless forces would come into existence for some unknown reason and proceed to cause a universe with laws of nature to cause stars, planets solar systems galaxies, dark matter, all necessary for life as we know to occur without plan, intent or an engineering degree...just happenstance. I believe in an intelligent Creator you believe in Mother nature...

I don't claim that the "mindless forces" came into existence since we don't have evidence for that either way. I don't make claims about the origin of the universe because it is an unknown. What you believe is irrelevant until you can show actual evidence FOR that claim and not just support it with "what else could it be". Your lack of imagination, need for closure, and general insecurity is not my problem.

By the way, learn to quote properly.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like unfogged's post
04-11-2017, 10:09 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 10:32 AM by JesseB.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(04-11-2017 06:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:47 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
If that was the response it would be quite reasonable. Since neither you or I know for sure we should respect each others beliefs until such time as we do know.



If it were true there was no evidence (facts that comport with belief in theism) that might be a reason to decline belief but since you claim you don't know how the universe came about your disrespect of it is just bias. Do you have any evidence mothernaturedidit? I'd be happy to compare facts to facts...

Facts that "comport with belief in theism" are not evidence FOR theism, they simply aren't evidence against it. That is an important distinction that you do not appear to grasp.

My disrespect for your beliefs that have no evidence actually supporting them is not bias, it is rationality.

I do not say "mothernaturedidtt". First, I don't personify natural causes because I don't have a need to imagine a thinking agent where none is indicated. Second, as you noted, my response is that I do not know. That's an honest answer and the problem is not that I look around and see that every other thing we have figured out has an apparently natural cause leads me to suspect (not claim) that there are natural answers for the universe is not on par with your claim that there is a supernatural god behind it all. Your claim is unjustified and deserves derision.

Quote:

It means to me that the existence of the universe and all we observe was caused by mother nature without plan or intent to do so.

When you show actual evidence of intent I will consider it.

Quote:Its not unreasonable to think a fix was in to cause all the conditions necessary for our existence.


And you don't know if a universe comes into existence it 'has' to be as it is. Since you don't have any evidence the universe has to be as it is that belief should be disrespected true? It doesn't matter what could explain why if a universe exists it has to have the properties that produce a universe with life? Every argument fact and data fails as far as you and most atheists are concerned...You're not going to admit...I mean say there is any evidence in support of theism. That axiom is sacrosanct.

That is gibberish. I did not claim that the universe has to be any way... that's your claim and you are the one that has no evidence that the universe has to be the way it is. The inference I am drawing is that you think it has to be the way it is in order to produce humans but I see no justification in claiming that humans are anything special or were intended to be. That idea is just arrogant. I do not admit that there is any evidence for theism because there isn't any. There is only argument from ignorance.

No axiom is ever sacrosanct. That's a major problem with theism. When faced with a question I can't answer I admit I do not know and look at the evidence and question my assumptions. Theists start with the answer they want and never move from that spot regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.

Quote:Its arrogant to think so if in fact it wasn't created for our existence...false humility to think it was caused unintentionally by mindless forces if it was caused by a Creator.

If you are going to insist that there has to be a creator because we had to exist so he had to create a universe just for us and call that humility then you do not know what arrogance or humility are.

Quote:For naturalism or atheism to be true the laws of physics don't have to exist, stars, planets, solar systems don't have to exist for naturalism to be true. Life and intelligent life doesn't have to exist for naturalism to be true. If we observed a unpredictable chaotic lifeless universe no one would have reason to believe it was intentionally caused by a creator. Why did naturalistic forces cause the conditions necessary for anyone to think theism is true?



They are necessary to have any reason to believe theism is true. Why do we humans create things which run by themselves? Calling the laws of nature natural explanations assumes the truth of your position that its natural causes all the way down.

I think you'd believe theism was true no matter what you saw. That's the porblem. If I assume naturalism all the way down it's because every shred of evidence we have supports that but I admit that what we know does not necessarily apply to the universe itself. I'm just not despaerate enough to imagine an answer or irrational enough to assume it has to be true because I can't explain it any other way.

Quote:I don't think we have any good reason to believe mindless forces would come into existence for some unknown reason and proceed to cause a universe with laws of nature to cause stars, planets solar systems galaxies, dark matter, all necessary for life as we know to occur without plan, intent or an engineering degree...just happenstance. I believe in an intelligent Creator you believe in Mother nature...

I don't claim that the "mindless forces" came into existence since we don't have evidence for that either way. I don't make claims about the origin of the universe because it is an unknown. What you believe is irrelevant until you can show actual evidence FOR that claim and not just support it with "what else could it be". Your lack of imagination, need for closure, and general insecurity is not my problem.

By the way, learn to quote properly.

Pretty sure I already asked this guy once already but...

Let me lay out the question more clearly for him.

@drewpiss

Question one
1. Define a natural law
2. Define law of physics
3. Define law of logic
4. Define a mathematical proof

Are the above concepts prescriptive or descriptive?
How do these laws come to be? What is the process by which we determine a "law"?
In what way are the above concepts related?

And finally can you demonstrate an understanding of any such "laws," for example do you know how many laws of thermodynamics there are, can you list any of said laws, can you demonstrate an understanding of the scope of each of those laws and under what circumstances any of those laws apply vs are not relevant to the equation?

I'm still waiting for your response to these questions, @unfogged has kindly illustrated the need for you to clearly demonstrate your knowledge (or lack there of) for everyone.

Edit^ oh and I wanna jump on the disrespect bandwagon! So at @drewpanties....

Fuck your god and the donky she rode in on, his daddy is a cunt, his mommy wears combat boots (old insults for the win, meh my mom really did wear combat boots she's a vet so maybe not the best insult but fuck it) I fart in your gods general direction and fuck him in the ass. Meh, it's all general fuckery since your god simply doesn't exist and if he does he's more than welcome to come say so in person and not through your dumb ass.

Enjoy!

Double Edit^
Follow up question, can you explain what constitutes evidence, and why it is important that evidence is demonstrable, repeatable, testable (I could say scientific evidence but really that's the only kind of evidence that exists in reality, any other form of "evidence" is actually nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim mislabeled as evidence)?

What is a Theory?
What is a Hypothesis?

what is the difference between a theory and a hypothesis and a natural law?

And finally what is Science? What is the Scientific Method? what is Metaphysics and what is philosophy? And why are all of the above questions and definitions important to this discussion (because they are important to this discussion and you need to demonstrate you understand why and that you understand these concepts)

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2017, 12:10 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
Greetings all,

First let me clear up a misconception I'm not a religious theist, I'm a philosophical theist. I'm not promoting or defending any religion and I'm not involved in any organized religion and haven't been for many years.

Jesses B wrote

Quote:Please do. I'm not talking some ontological or other metaphysical/philosophical argument that demonstrates the possibility that a "god" COULD exist. I mean tangible evidence that such a being DOES exist. Because I can create far stronger arguments than any of the theistic ones that would argue that the existence of a god is logically inconsistent with the world and could not exist.

You'll be the first one most atheists bash theism from pillar to post claiming it is preposterous and absurd idea but then hide behind the 'atheism is a lack of belief dodge' and go on to claim they don't actually deny God exists...they just lack that belief.

Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief. For instance a dead body comports with the belief a murder occurred. Is it proof a murder has occurred? No its not because death occurs for other reasons than murder. We have to delineate evidence from proof. When atheists ask for evidence they often mean provide proof. I don't have proof a Creator caused the universe to exist...I do have evidence. Suppose the only information we have is a corpse. By itself it is evidence of murder because someone has to be killed for murder to occur. However its far from conclusive because we know death can occur from natural causes. Since we know most deaths occurs from natural causes without any further information we can infer it was probably natural causes. When it comes to the universe we have no history we know of only one. We can't say its most likely due to natural causes or due to a Creator.

The rest of your post is mostly incoherent rambling about the size of your penis which I'd prefer not to know...but let me ask you this. You know that scientists, engineers and programmers have been able to create a virtual universes. They wield god like power over such universes. Suppose a thousand years from now scientists can cause a real universe to exist. Would that be logically impossible as you claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2017, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 02:38 PM by JesseB.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(04-11-2017 12:10 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Greetings all,

First let me clear up a misconception I'm not a religious theist, I'm a philosophical theist. I'm not promoting or defending any religion and I'm not involved in any organized religion and haven't been for many years.

Jesses B wrote

Quote:Please do. I'm not talking some ontological or other metaphysical/philosophical argument that demonstrates the possibility that a "god" COULD exist. I mean tangible evidence that such a being DOES exist. Because I can create far stronger arguments than any of the theistic ones that would argue that the existence of a god is logically inconsistent with the world and could not exist.

You'll be the first one most atheists bash theism from pillar to post claiming it is preposterous and absurd idea but then hide behind the 'atheism is a lack of belief dodge' and go on to claim they don't actually deny God exists...they just lack that belief.

Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief. For instance a dead body comports with the belief a murder occurred. Is it proof a murder has occurred? No its not because death occurs for other reasons than murder. We have to delineate evidence from proof. When atheists ask for evidence they often mean provide proof. I don't have proof a Creator caused the universe to exist...I do have evidence. Suppose the only information we have is a corpse. By itself it is evidence of murder because someone has to be killed for murder to occur. However its far from conclusive because we know death can occur from natural causes. Since we know most deaths occurs from natural causes without any further information we can infer it was probably natural causes. When it comes to the universe we have no history we know of only one. We can't say its most likely due to natural causes or due to a Creator.

The rest of your post is mostly incoherent rambling about the size of your penis which I'd prefer not to know...but let me ask you this. You know that scientists, engineers and programmers have been able to create a virtual universes. They wield god like power over such universes. Suppose a thousand years from now scientists can cause a real universe to exist. Would that be logically impossible as you claim?

@Dre, thanks for the clarification on your position

1. It's not incoherent rambling about the size of my penis (your low reading comprehension skill isn't exactly my fault) if you had any math skill at all You'd know exactly what I "claim" the size of my penis is, and how absurdly ridiculous that claim is. Math, it's a wonderful thing (aka it was a joke and it's meaning was lost on you, no surprises there). That is if you're referring to my first post to you. If not this comment makes no sense. Someone already mentioned this to you before but... Learn to quote properly. Please.

2. While it's possible to think that a god could exist, and it's not unreasonable to think that a god could exist. You STILL have yet to provide evidence that such a god DOES exist. Without such evidence it's completely asinine to make the claim that any god does exist. At best you can say, "I don't know yet" and there would be nothing wrong with that. In fact I couldn't give a flying fuck if you believe a god exists without any good reason to think so. That's on you, the world is full of stupid people, grab a ticket and wait in line. However you're out here trying to make the claim and presumably convince others to agree with you. Would you like to also claim the earth is flat? Because that's pretty much on par with the claim that a god exists. Well to be fair not quite, there is slightly more possibility that a god could exist, again all we'd need is SOME evidence to justify a belief in such.

You don't know this, but I happen to be one of those computer science majors capable of creating worlds inside of a computer. I understand how it works, I understand the complexities involved. I understand the interesting prospects A.I. and such worlds put forward. I often joke that I am god, or rather a computer god, kinda sounds like I'm far more aware of the philosophical ramifications and implications than you are. I also have experience in automotive mechanics, electronic engineering, as such I have a reasonable grasp on the physics involved and the scientific method. Once again, postulating something as possible does not make it probable. Your problem is you are making an unsubstantiated leap from point A to point B with no justification or evidence. You simply say it is "reasonable' and in that you are flat out wrong. It is absolutely not reasonable to make a jump like that without evidence. Period. So present the evidence, This is now the 3rd time I have asked you to present some evidence. Still waiting to see some.

3. You have failed to answer ANY of the questions I presented you with in the above post. Please answer the fucking questions Smile

4. Atheism is a lack of belief, it's not running and hiding. Whine and cry all you want that people won't play along with your straw man representation of what they think or believe, what I have presented is structured and rational and logically consistent. As of yet your claims have been logically inconstant, your biggest problem is your unjustified leaps from "this could happen" to "this does happen." Perhaps someone has already asked this of you but, do you think it's possible that we could live in a universe where no godlike things exist? Your answer to this would be very telling and would give an accurate measurement of just where the break in your cognition is. We can measure it... Example to follow...

If you admit that there might not be any godlike thing, then the only failing in your logic and cognition is some general unsubstantiated leaps from A to B without a good reason for making those leaps, perhaps emotionally you are too underdeveloped to cope with said possibility and the other option makes you happier so you make the leap, perhaps there's another explanation as to WHY you do this. Regardless without evidence you are simply wrong to make said leap from a god could exist to a god does exist. Period. I can accept you are stupid, I can accept you are irrational, to some extent we all are. But what I can't accept is in the face of these basic fundamental facts being spelled out, you consistently push back without any self reflection. It's fucking pathetic. Try harder.

If you are unwilling to admit that a godthing might not exist then you simply aren't being intellectually honest with yourself or anyone else and talking to you is a fucking waste of time. Put the diapers back on and start growing up all over again cause you missed a few important lessons.

The null hypothesis is that no gods exist. That is the default position. Why? Because any other position requires some evidence to justify the adoption of that position. You can not "prove" a negative, therefor you start from there, any claims beyond that require evidence to suggest them. I would encourage you to try and find a god (or anything supernatural), no really fucking hell when you do teach me how to cast a fireball spell, I'd really like that. Until you do however your position is simply asinine. If you have evidence please present it (asking again). Or are you so stupid as to think Unicorns exist.... I mean can you prove to me I don't have an invisible pink unicorn in my bed right now?

I would recommend you watch the old movie Harvey starring James Stewart, Also read Our Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan. ALSO look up James Randy putting people's asinine supernatural claims to the test. It's kinda funny cause these idiots are completely convinced they have special powers and.... NOPE. Then watch mystery men with the boy that can turn invisible but only when no one is watching LOL, yea what you are talking about is pretty much the same fucking bullshit, it makes for some good humor in a movie but in real life? It's bullshit. If you want more materials that can help you understand the concepts I'm describing I"ll be happy to share more suggestions with you.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like JesseB's post
04-11-2017, 02:48 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
Lets take two people and a box

Person 1: Here's an empty box, pretty nifty
Person 2: There's a car in the box
Person 1: Where do you see a car in this box?
Person 2: Well it's a big box I can't see the car but I BELIEVE there's a car in this box!
Person 1: OK I'm going to build a light and put it in the box (builds light places in box) There now we can see in this box better, you're right it's fucking huge! But I don't see any car in this damn box!
Person 2: Well the car is prolly in one of the darker corners we can't quite see yet, also it's invisible and exists in a timespace fold outside the physical relm of this box but still inside the box
Person 1: You're a fucking moron you know that? Stop wasting my damn time with your asinine assertions.
Person 2: That's not very nice!
Person 1: Then show me some fucking evidence to support your claim?
Person 2: There is evidence!
Person 1: WHERE?
Person 2: There's a box!
Person 1: .......... so? ............ huh?
Person 2: The box exists and I believe the car exists therefor there is a car in this box!
Person 1: (Just died from the blood pressure spike from being confronted by just how stupid person 2 is)

(Little hint, You sound like person 2 Drew, provide some fucking evidence that there's a damn car in this box. Please.)

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
04-11-2017, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 03:15 PM by unfogged.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(04-11-2017 12:10 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  ...then hide behind the 'atheism is a lack of belief dodge' and go on to claim they don't actually deny God exists...they just lack that belief.

It is not a dodge, it is the basic definition of atheism. I do not hold a belief in any god. I do not accept the claim "god exists" because I have not found any credible evidence to support that claim. When it comes to many specific gods, like Jehovah, then I will say that I believe they do not exist.

Quote:Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief.

No, it is not. Evidence requires facts that actually support a belief, not merely "comport" with it.

Quote:For instance a dead body comports with the belief a murder occurred.

but is not, in and of itself, evidence that that a murder occurred. If you believe there was a murder just because there is a body then you are jumping to a conclusion without evidence.

Quote:We have to delineate evidence from proof.

Proof is a red herring; it applies to logical arguments. If you do not have evidence that a murder was actually committed then you don't have evidence for your belief that there was a murder. If you do not have evidence FOR your god belief then you are irrational to believe it exists. All the philosophical arguments in the world can, at best, help you figure out where to look for evidence but they can never BE evidence.

Quote:When atheists ask for evidence they often mean provide proof. I don't have proof a Creator caused the universe to exist...I do have evidence.

No, you don't have evidence. You have only a misuse of the term. By the way, when your suggested answer is functionally equivalent to "magic" then please explain how any evidence would not "comport" with it. An unfalsifiable proposition is valueless.

Quote:Since we know most deaths occurs from natural causes without any further information we can infer it was probably natural causes. When it comes to the universe we have no history we know of only one. We can't say its most likely due to natural causes or due to a Creator.

If every death we ever found an explanation for turned out to be natural causes then assuming natural causes as the most likely answer when we find a body would be reasonable. The same is true when we look at explanations for what we see around us -- every single thing that has ever been figured out has been the result of natural causes. What is not reasonable is putting the conjecture of the existence of a supernatural entity on the same level.

Since in reality we know that murders do occur it makes sense to investigate when a body is found to rule that in or out. We look for actual evidence FOR murder or actual evidence FOR natural causes because we know both are possible. We have no reason to believe that a god is a possible answer to anything because it has never been the answer to anything. Ever.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
04-11-2017, 03:05 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 03:13 PM by JesseB.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
I'd like to add because I missed drew's use of the word "Proof" earlier

Maths have proofs
Alcohol has Proofs

Drew you don't seem to understand what the fuck you are talking about. There's no such thing as "Proof" in the manner in which you are using the word. There is only evidence to support the claim. Not "Proof" of the claim. As Unfogged just said Poofs can only work in relation to logical arguments (because logic is a form of math) therefor those arguments or their "proofs" can not be used as evidence as Unfogged just stated. All a logical or mathematical proof does is demonstrate essentially that the structure is sound, that doesn't mean it exists in reality or could exist. Many maths relate to things that are conceptual only. And... well your logical "arguments' have some pretty major holes in them so to say that you've even provided "proofs" in that regard is flat out wrong.

Logic and maths are tools that can be used to measure and define and describe the REAL world, however they are conceptual ideas so not everything we can imagine or define and describe ect with logic or maths exists within the REAL world. You are abusing logic (and by extension maths) and the concepts they are based on when you try to claim you've proven a god exists with nothing more than some argument. Even if said argument were structurally sound and well formed and internally consistent that still would tell you NOTHING about reality, it would only mean you've actually found a possible justification that a god could exist, you still would have failed to demonstrate that any god DOES exist. As such you would still be fucking wrong. If you want to say a god exists there's really only one thing you can do if you also want to be factually accurate and not just be pulling mindless assertions out of your ass; that thing is go out in the fucking world and look for some damn evidence, test it, demonstrate it, then reveal it to the world so others can also test it and demonstrate it. If it holds up everyone will become theists and they'll all have good reason for it too.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
04-11-2017, 03:27 PM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
I would still like for him to clarify his assertion about the universe caring about humans. Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: