Total Posts:293|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Avoid Atheist Jargon: No Evidence

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2015 10:40:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief.

Logical Arguments are a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Evidence lacks any value depart from argumentation. And any argumentation that makes statements about this reality and this universe will employ evidence.

Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

One can not denote what reality is without referencing true premises. And One can not distinguish what is True without referencing reality in it's premises.

So when theist make an argument for god, there are premises based in reality. Theist arguments posit a conclusion of God from premises that reference observations of this reality.

The body of observations is generally they same for all parties in this shared reality. And so even if the Atheist can posit an alternative hypothesis to explain the same observation the theist uses, this not imply that the Theist does not have evidence.

There is a set of observations that are used as evidence to conclude the existence of god. therefore "No evidence" is fallacious.

I find "no evidence" to be a form of sophistry and atheist dogmatic false assertion.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 3:05:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You really don't get it, do you? Just because an explanation *could* fit the facts does not mean those facts are evidence for that explanation.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 4:49:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 10:40:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

So when theist make an argument for god, there are premises based in reality. Theist arguments posit a conclusion of God from premises that reference observations of this reality.

The body of observations is generally they same for all parties in this shared reality. And so even if the Atheist can posit an alternative hypothesis to explain the same observation the theist uses, this not imply that the Theist does not have evidence.

There is a set of observations that are used as evidence to conclude the existence of god. therefore "No evidence" is fallacious.

I find "no evidence" to be a form of sophistry and atheist dogmatic false assertion.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 5:31:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 10:40:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief.

Logical Arguments are a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Evidence lacks any value depart from argumentation. And any argumentation that makes statements about this reality and this universe will employ evidence.

Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

One can not denote what reality is without referencing true premises. And One can not distinguish what is True without referencing reality in it's premises.

So when theist make an argument for god, there are premises based in reality. Theist arguments posit a conclusion of God from premises that reference observations of this reality.

The body of observations is generally they same for all parties in this shared reality. And so even if the Atheist can posit an alternative hypothesis to explain the same observation the theist uses, this not imply that the Theist does not have evidence.

There is a set of observations that are used as evidence to conclude the existence of god. therefore "No evidence" is fallacious.

I find "no evidence" to be a form of sophistry and atheist dogmatic false assertion.

There is no evidence that any deity exists!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:27:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 3:05:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
You really don't get it, do you? Just because an explanation *could* fit the facts does not mean those facts are evidence for that explanation.

Thats exactly what it means.

Weighing which explaination is correct, is a different step in reasoning.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:36:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:27:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:05:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
You really don't get it, do you? Just because an explanation *could* fit the facts does not mean those facts are evidence for that explanation.

Thats exactly what it means.

Weighing which explaination is correct, is a different step in reasoning.

No it effing doesn't. The explanation has to be backed by verifiable evidence while remaining falsifiable. I could say that the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid, but go on to include the caveat that the asteroid was sent by ancient humans who were actually Martians at that time looking to move house. The lack of any evidence on Mars to suggest a civilization with that capability doesn't just put that explanation on the back-burner, it pushes it off the stove.

The main difference between my "explanation" and yours, is that mine is falsifiable.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:38:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 5:31:30 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 4/15/2015 10:40:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief.

Logical Arguments are a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Evidence lacks any value depart from argumentation. And any argumentation that makes statements about this reality and this universe will employ evidence.

Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

One can not denote what reality is without referencing true premises. And One can not distinguish what is True without referencing reality in it's premises.

So when theist make an argument for god, there are premises based in reality. Theist arguments posit a conclusion of God from premises that reference observations of this reality.

The body of observations is generally they same for all parties in this shared reality. And so even if the Atheist can posit an alternative hypothesis to explain the same observation the theist uses, this not imply that the Theist does not have evidence.

There is a set of observations that are used as evidence to conclude the existence of god. therefore "No evidence" is fallacious.

I find "no evidence" to be a form of sophistry and atheist dogmatic false assertion.

There is no evidence that any deity exists!

Well I don't want to repaste all the arguments, but some classic examples of this evidence are: universe exists, difference between emotion and thought, universe is orderly understandable, universe is finite, origin of life, eyewitnesses to miracles, ect..
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:44:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:36:25 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:27:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:05:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
You really don't get it, do you? Just because an explanation *could* fit the facts does not mean those facts are evidence for that explanation.

Thats exactly what it means.

Weighing which explaination is correct, is a different step in reasoning.

No it effing doesn't. The explanation has to be backed by verifiable evidence while remaining falsifiable. I could say that the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid, but go on to include the caveat that the asteroid was sent by ancient humans who were actually Martians at that time looking to move house. The lack of any evidence on Mars to suggest a civilization with that capability doesn't just put that explanation on the back-burner, it pushes it off the stove.

The main difference between my "explanation" and yours, is that mine is falsifiable.

You make the example that Martians killed the dinosuars. Then you say that this is an explaination off the stove. You use martian surveys as evidence to falsify the example.

I defined evidence from the dictionary. It's what is used to support a proposition.

There may very well be more pluasible explainations then martians moving house. But weighing the explainations is a different critical step.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:47:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:50:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:47:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:53:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:44:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:36:25 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:27:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:05:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
You really don't get it, do you? Just because an explanation *could* fit the facts does not mean those facts are evidence for that explanation.

Thats exactly what it means.

Weighing which explaination is correct, is a different step in reasoning.

No it effing doesn't. The explanation has to be backed by verifiable evidence while remaining falsifiable. I could say that the dinosaurs were killed off by an asteroid, but go on to include the caveat that the asteroid was sent by ancient humans who were actually Martians at that time looking to move house. The lack of any evidence on Mars to suggest a civilization with that capability doesn't just put that explanation on the back-burner, it pushes it off the stove.

The main difference between my "explanation" and yours, is that mine is falsifiable.

You make the example that Martians killed the dinosuars. Then you say that this is an explaination off the stove. You use martian surveys as evidence to falsify the example.

I defined evidence from the dictionary. It's what is used to support a proposition.

There may very well be more pluasible explainations then martians moving house. But weighing the explainations is a different critical step.

It is as I said: falsifiable.

Goddidit isn't, unless you have devised a means to test for the presence of god.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 6:57:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:27:31 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 3:05:19 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
You really don't get it, do you? Just because an explanation *could* fit the facts does not mean those facts are evidence for that explanation.

Thats exactly what it means.

Weighing which explaination is correct, is a different step in reasoning.

As I said: you really don't get it.

Evidence is what makes one explanation preferable (more likely) than another. If something starts off not fitting the facts then it isn't even a potential explanation, so by definition all potential explanations will fit the facts. Which is best can only be decided by further investigation.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:01:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 6:50:14 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:47:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:01:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:50:14 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:47:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:04:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:01:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:50:14 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:47:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

I didn't think so.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:07:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 10:40:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief.

Logical Arguments are a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Evidence lacks any value depart from argumentation. And any argumentation that makes statements about this reality and this universe will employ evidence.

Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

One can not denote what reality is without referencing true premises. And One can not distinguish what is True without referencing reality in it's premises.

So when theist make an argument for god, there are premises based in reality. Theist arguments posit a conclusion of God from premises that reference observations of this reality.

The body of observations is generally they same for all parties in this shared reality. And so even if the Atheist can posit an alternative hypothesis to explain the same observation the theist uses, this not imply that the Theist does not have evidence.

There is a set of observations that are used as evidence to conclude the existence of god. therefore "No evidence" is fallacious.

I find "no evidence" to be a form of sophistry and atheist dogmatic false assertion.

As we discussed last night, unless you can show your evidence is specific to god and eliminate all other possibilities, then it is duplicitous to call it evidence for god. We can take the evidence you listed for JJ and simply cite it for natural explanations, aliens, or other gods as well. You will need specific evidence for god that cannot be explained in any other way, otherwise your claims of evidence are completely without value.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 7:22:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:04:45 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:01:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:50:14 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:47:33 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:43:05 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 6:33:56 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/16/2015 5:00:24 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

I didn't think so.

K?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 8:52:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:01:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

Bare assertion. Patronising. Inaccurate.

At least put some effort into being an idiot, Mike.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:05:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

Are you suggesting that we need an absolute source for everything we do, create or recognize? According to that logic, atheists should not know to avoid eating rocks without an objective source to guide their eating habits. In addition to this, peoples who have never heard of your God somehow seem to recognize truth, knowledge and logic. How is that possible without you objective source?

*Hint: the objective source is not necessary.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:08:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/15/2015 10:40:38 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief.

Logical Arguments are a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.

Evidence lacks any value depart from argumentation. And any argumentation that makes statements about this reality and this universe will employ evidence.

Truth is that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

One can not denote what reality is without referencing true premises. And One can not distinguish what is True without referencing reality in it's premises.

So when theist make an argument for god, there are premises based in reality. Theist arguments posit a conclusion of God from premises that reference observations of this reality.

Yes, that's called 'Confirmation Bias", in which the theist looks for any reason whatsoever to support their particular creation stories, even if the evidence does not demonstrate in any way those creation stories. An example of this is the difference between Christianity and Islam, in which the creation stories vary widely.

The body of observations is generally they same for all parties in this shared reality. And so even if the Atheist can posit an alternative hypothesis to explain the same observation the theist uses, this not imply that the Theist does not have evidence.

Sorry, but you mistakenly state "Atheist" when the correct term to use is "Scientific Community".

There is a set of observations that are used as evidence to conclude the existence of god. therefore "No evidence" is fallacious.

There are no observations that conclude the existence of any gods. All observations reveal the physical laws of the universe.

I find "no evidence" to be a form of sophistry and atheist dogmatic false assertion.

Again, the correct term is not atheist, it is "scientific community".
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:12:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

At it again, scmike? I'm still waiting for you to describe those 'divine revelations, direct and indirect' that gave you your stunning sense of logic so I can compare mine, since you claim we all have the same source. You ran away from the last discussion so I'm hoping you actually came prepared this time.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:15:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:52:13 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

So you've abandoned your atheism for Christianity then?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:16:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:01:16 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

Bare assertion. Patronising. Inaccurate.

At least put some effort into being an idiot, Mike.

Hey, I'm just glad to see that you have no rational response! I am pleased with that!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:17:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

The broken record returns to spin round again?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 9:22:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/16/2015 9:15:11 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:52:13 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/16/2015 8:43:35 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2015 7:03:06 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:

(double post due to malfunctioning mousepad)

Regardless, the section I quoted. Yeah. That's where you lost me. A supernatural explanation is a massive jump in logic. One assumes a conclusion before more questions are asked (even outright rejects more questions in some cases); the other (naturalistic explanation) demands more and more evidence and asks more and more questions.

The statement: "Reality is true and truth is reality, so I choose to believe god to be responsible for all that we observe." Is a wordier version of goddidit. What observations gives credence to god? Reality? Replace god with Odin. You've produced nothing new here.

Could you define supernatural? I understand it to mean unexplainable by science. Which is actually a lot of stuff.

And more questions should always be welcomed. But how you feel about the conclusion of the argument doesn't have any bearing to the validity or inferrences of the argument.

I don't think Odin is an equal match to a transendental mind making the universe. And if Odin was defined as so, you've done nothing but change the word not the essences.

The conclusion of the argument is an abortion of rational thought. How's that? You go from stating straight truths to "goddidit is justified". The mistake in that shouldn't have to explained to you.

And don't try to dodge the Odin substitution. I've been lurking this site long enough to learn your tactics. Substitute God with [Insert Fantastical Anything Here] and tell me, honestly, that you have no grounds for disbelieving in fairies, Gandalf, elves, dragons, mermaids, etc.

I have reasons to disbelieve in all those. Except elves. Are you using the hollywood version of elves or the Tuatha de Dannan descriptions?

Name those reasons.

And I'm Saxon-Swede, so I have no idea if the Tuatha de Dannan have anything in common with Germanic elves. I'm going to have to defer to you on that.

Actually since you brought it up, how about you name the reasons as to why any of those examples are as logical as the concept of a Creator? Unless of course you just want to make Myhkiel do all the work while you do nothing but move goal posts.

I'm not the one positing a claim that something exists. Simple as that.

Hey UncannyN! What you may not realize is that you are assuming the existence of a whole variety of things by even arguing here----namely: laws of logic, truth, and knowledge (which are prerequisites for any argument) to name but a few. The question that one should ultimately ask you, though, is how any of these concepts can be rationally justified within an atheistic worldview (since the characteristics of those concepts do not comport with a strictly material, random universe)? I am genuinely curious as to your rationale for believing in, appealing to, and utilizing such things. I look forward to your response.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

So you've abandoned your atheism for Christianity then?

I offered you a link dedicated to tearing down that TAG BS, and this is your enlightened response?

Is this dude a troll? I'm new here, so I'm trying to put together a list.