Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-08-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 02:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Doesn't Y also have a complete and total lack of evidence? And if so, wouldn't it be eliminated as well because of this?

That's like saying atheism has a complete and total lack of evidence. Atheists don't need evidence there is no God, they need evidence there is (as should any rational mind). As long as physics continues to describe the universe solely in terms of natural laws there is no reason to introduce a designer or intentionality. Just muddies the water with an additional completely unnecessary assumption which adds absolutely nothing to the explanation. Occam would not be pleased.

I've already provided evidence in this thread whether atheists concede its evidence or not isn't relevant. Just curious what would an 'unnatural' law look like? Describe a phenomena or event that is either A. Unnatural or B. Supernatural. How can we know if up to this point the universe can be described in terms of natural laws if we don't have a criteria to evaluate it by? Secondly physics at best only describes the universe as it is. This conversation is about what (if anything) caused the universe to exist. No one denies it operates under the laws of physics just as a car or a laptop does but we know those things were caused by plan and design. What that means is (to spell it out) the premise that something that can be explained via natural law means it was caused by natural forces is false. It could true but it isn't necessarily true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 05:01 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Quote: X- Intentionality- is eliminated because of a complete and total lack of evidence.

So says the atheist. So what?
The theist says I provided 6 lines of evidence in favor of X over Y and I don't care if you say its not evidence, you're dogmatic beliefs are not binding to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2015 05:32 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 04:49 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  This conversation is about what (if anything) caused the universe to exist. No one denies it operates under the laws of physics just as a car or a laptop does but we know those things were caused by plan and design. What that means is (to spell it out) the premise that something that can be explained via natural law means it was caused by natural forces is false.

No it doesn't. Because human artifacts exist therefore God. Natural laws are distinguished from artifacts by virtue of the very fact that one was designed and the other wasn't.

(10-08-2015 04:49 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  It could true but it isn't necessarily true.

Of course not, but as long as it continues to be sufficient there's no need to introduce additional assumptions. Especially ones which are completely baseless with zero explanatory power. Intelligent design is neither necessary nor sufficient. It is worse than superfluous, it is confounding.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
10-08-2015, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2015 07:14 PM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 05:01 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  
Quote: X- Intentionality- is eliminated because of a complete and total lack of evidence.

So says the atheist. So what?
The theist says I provided 6 lines of evidence in favor of X over Y and I don't care if you say its not evidence, you're dogmatic beliefs are not binding to me.

You have provided no evidence.

Since when do assertions constitute evidence? Arguments are not evidence whatsoever. If assertions and arguments could be permitted as evidence well then by golly I assert there is 5000 fucking monkeys crawling up your ass right now and therefore it MUST be true, right?

Right ...

That's the problem with you theists. You are so indoctrinated that you have never been taught what is known as "critical thinking." You have never been taught how to be "rationally skeptical." You have never been trained in "logic and reasoning."

And, I seriously believe that you are completely incapable of learning any of those basic human skills due to intense indoctrination via bad religious programming.

[Image: Messagebox-Example-5.png]

But we atheists already know from experience that you will only ever see the Ignore button, as Abort is not an option.

So go ahead, and enjoy whatever is your garden variety flavour-of-the-week religion these days.

Yeah ...

Drinking Beverage

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 06:06 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2015 06:28 PM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 04:49 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  but we know those things were caused by plan and design.

You do not "know" this at all. You have provided no evidence whatsoever to support this.

When will you finally realize that the only evidence you absolutely need to supply is God himself?

Until you do that, every last one of your arguments are meaningless, pointless, unevidenced, illogical, false, lies, and intellectually dishonest.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2015, 07:29 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 12:38 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Chas,

Quote:No, you haven't. You have offered an argument based on your interpretations of facts.

By all means man up and cite your own facts in favor of what you believe.

I'm not making a claim that needs support - you are.

Quote:
Quote:Now you've got it. I don't believe in any of the explanations of the origin of the universe. I simply weigh the strength of the evidence for each.

There is no evidence of a sentient creator.

Just because you reject evidence doesn't make it non-evidence. So you are an a-naturalist as well as an a-theist? Do you claim that folks who promote the naturalist view provide no evidence either?

You have provided no evidence, just your feelings about what some things mean.

And the whole fine-tuning argument is pre-suppositional. You have to suppose that things are supposed to be this way - that is a totally unwarranted belief.

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
10-08-2015, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2015 08:03 AM by Chas.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 04:49 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  I've already provided evidence in this thread whether atheists concede its evidence or not isn't relevant.

Of course it is relevant. You have presented opinions, not evidence.

Quote:Just curious what would an 'unnatural' law look like? Describe a phenomena or event that is either A. Unnatural or B. Supernatural. How can we know if up to this point the universe can be described in terms of natural laws if we don't have a criteria to evaluate it by? Secondly physics at best only describes the universe as it is. This conversation is about what (if anything) caused the universe to exist. No one denies it operates under the laws of physics just as a car or a laptop does but we know those things were caused by plan and design.

We know no such thing. That is an extraordinarily ridiculous assertion.
I misread that paragraph. My eyes probably scanned from 'supernatural' to 'know those...design '. Facepalm

Quote:What that means is (to spell it out) the premise that something that can be explained via natural law means it was caused by natural forces is false. It could true but it isn't necessarily true.

Yet, there is no evidence of anything other than natural forces.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
11-08-2015, 06:57 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 08:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:No one denies it operates under the laws of physics just as a car or a laptop does but we know those things were caused by plan and design.

We know no such thing. That is an extraordinarily ridiculous assertion.

To be fair, "those things" is referring to cars and laptops. His argument is still specious but I think you misread that sentence.

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
11-08-2015, 07:01 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(10-08-2015 01:20 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Of course they're serious flaws to this argument. This would be like saying if the only thing that existed were baseballs that even though we have no evidence baseballs could or did produce their own existence the default position should be they produced themselves because we know for a fact baseballs exist.

The difference being that we have evidence of natural forces interacting and causing things to happen. Baseballs don't do that. Where we'd have no reason to suspect that baseballs could create anything we do know that natural forces can.

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
11-08-2015, 08:01 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2015 08:05 AM by Chas.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(11-08-2015 06:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-08-2015 08:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  We know no such thing. That is an extraordinarily ridiculous assertion.

To be fair, "those things" is referring to cars and laptops. His argument is still specious but I think you misread that sentence.

Yeah, I misread the sentence. It was 10:30PM+ after a long day.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: