Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 02:29 AM)savedwheat Wrote:  Delusion is the foremost condition of being an atheist.

False.

The theist is the sole benefactor of self-delusion in relation to blindly accepting as real that which cannot be proven to be factual. The atheist resides in reality, for he does not believe in that which cannot be proven to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 12:34 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  A deity which *exists*, of necessity, MUST participate in Reality, therefore cannot be the creator of very Reality in which it is REQUIRED to participate.
I think that's TOO MUCH logic for any theist to stomach Laughat

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 10:10 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  First, you are attempting to establish a universal rule from specific data. Doing so requires a reasoning from the specific to the general, which is forbidden under deductive logic.

Data that is specific and not vague is better than vague data, and it is all we have when we establish evidence. The data is trillions and trillions of cause and effects observed in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; therefore, the reasoned person establishes this as a fact because it is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A court of law establishes itself on just such findings to render a verdict. Whether deductive or inductive, evidence is established if it has enough points of corroboration.

So we establish prove fact #1:

Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:51 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  So we establish prove fact #1:

Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.

No, I'm not ready to accept that. Particles appear out of empty space all the time. You will need to be more specific.

Also, the verb you want is "proceed". But we're not ready to do that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-12-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 03:51 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  So we establish prove fact #1:

Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.

No, I'm not ready to accept that. Particles appear out of empty space all the time. You will need to be more specific.

Also, the verb you want is "proceed". But we're not ready to do that. Drinking Beverage

Nah, he definitely wants to "precede." Angel

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
20-12-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:51 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Data that is specific and not vague is better than vague data, and it is all we have when we establish evidence. The data is trillions and trillions of cause and effects observed in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; therefore, the reasoned person establishes this as a fact because it is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A court of law establishes itself on just such findings to render a verdict. Whether deductive or inductive, evidence is established if it has enough points of corroboration.

So we establish prove fact #1:

Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.

"Trillions and trillions of observed cause and effects" proves absolutely nothing, and certainly demonstrates or proves nothing about any deity. There are a googleplex of uncaused virtual particles, that refute that claim. Constantly repeating a meaningless assertion, does not make it true. "Something can't come from nothing" in light of what we know about Relativity, the Double Slit Experiment, and Uncertainty, makes as much sense as the assertion, "The moon is made of green cheese".

He can harp on his pathetic one trick pony, till the cows come home. Doesn't make it true. Clearly he has no science or philosophy background.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:18 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:51 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 10:10 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  First, you are attempting to establish a universal rule from specific data. Doing so requires a reasoning from the specific to the general, which is forbidden under deductive logic.

Data that is specific and not vague is better than vague data, and it is all we have when we establish evidence. The data is trillions and trillions of cause and effects observed in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; therefore, the reasoned person establishes this as a fact because it is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A court of law establishes itself on just such findings to render a verdict. Whether deductive or inductive, evidence is established if it has enough points of corroboration.

So we establish prove fact #1:

Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.

Are you sure your sphincter ani internus will be able to handle further discussion on this subject ?

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:51 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.

Is this something you were told to believe, or a conclusion you came to independently in your field of scientific research. If it's the latter, please provide your background so we know this is something more than a theist parroting what he has been taught to say.

I'm not ready to proceed. You don't get to assert facts; you have to earn them here. And that's a fact.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:23 PM
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 03:51 PM)savedwheat Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 10:10 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  First, you are attempting to establish a universal rule from specific data. Doing so requires a reasoning from the specific to the general, which is forbidden under deductive logic.

Data that is specific and not vague is better than vague data, and it is all we have when we establish evidence. The data is trillions and trillions of cause and effects observed in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; therefore, the reasoned person establishes this as a fact because it is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. A court of law establishes itself on just such findings to render a verdict. Whether deductive or inductive, evidence is established if it has enough points of corroboration.

So we establish prove fact #1:

Something can't come from nothing.

If you are ready now to accept this fact, we can precede over to the matter of infinite regress. Let me know when you are ready.

First of all, "reasoning from the specific to the general" does not mean what you think it means. Specific as used in this sense is not contrasted with "vague". It's contrasted with "general". An example of this would be meeting 5 people from Scotland with red hair (five specific examples), and from this concluding a general rule that all Scots have red hair. While this can be a decent inductive reasoning process, it is also prone to error. Not having met a Scot without red hair doesn't prove that there isn't such a person, nor that such a person can never be born. Courts of law frequently arrive at false verdicts. And, as pointed out, there are models of particle physics wherein this might not hold. So while I will accept it as a decent general rule on the macro level that we are familiar with, I am not prepared to hold with perfect certainty that it is without exception, or even that it holds generally on scales or environs greatly different than our own, or that it can be used to prove something that should be regarded as even less probable than its own negation. I would intuitively expect it to be true in these circumstances, but would not regard it as proven when it has been so distantly extrapolated from the data set of my experiential reference.

But ultimately this is a secondary objection to your argument. I'm eager to get to the primary objection regarding the impossibility of infinite regress. So I'll accept it as a hypothetical, in order that we might continue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2013, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2013 04:41 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why Am I a Theist, not an Atheist, and Not Just Any Kind of Theist
(20-12-2013 04:02 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 03:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I'm not ready to accept that. Particles appear out of empty space all the time. You will need to be more specific.

Also, the verb you want is "proceed". But we're not ready to do that. Drinking Beverage

Nah, he definitely wants to "precede." Angel

Yeah. That's what Presuppositionists do. They precede analysis with belief.
It's called "confirmation bias". He NEEDS to believe in a deity, so he LOOKS to confirm his belief, in any way possible. (It's about psychology, more than anything else). They NEED to have an (explanatory) big-daddy. At the VERY most, even if one allows " necessary cause" the MOST one can conclude from that is "We don't know yet".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: