God's choice: quick question for Christians

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's up to you, but all I've asked you to give up the lying. You never know, it might be good for your "soul".

I'm not sure what you are arguing about now but you seemed to be saying I support the idea that atheism supports science. I don't and I never have. There is no war between science and religion as far as I am concerned. You on the other hand frequently try to use science in arguments against religion.
Example Thunder and Thor where you are effectively saying that eventually there will be a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything.

If you have another position then you have every opportunity to state it.

[Gordon]

Example Thunder and Thor where you are effectively saying that eventually there will be a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything.

Good heavens, Vlad - even you must realise that this is an obvious straw man.

That previous beliefs are superseded: so we no longer subscribe to geocentricity, phlogiston or the miasma theory of disease, says nothing about there being 'a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good heavens, Vlad - even you must realise that this is an obvious straw man.

That previous beliefs are superseded: so we no longer subscribe to geocentricity, phlogiston or the miasma theory of disease, says nothing about there being 'a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything'.

Then why does hillside keep bringing up Thor and thunder? and why do you blame me for it?

This seems to be a bit of a tactic amongst your ilk at the moment.
Jack knave states that theism has fallen because of science. Hillside accuses me of stating that science supports atheism.

Hillside brings up Thor and thunder as the example for the fate that will befall a divine solution to the origins of the universe and you accuse me of bringing up the very thing I object to as a straw man.

[Gordon]

Then why does hillside keep bringing up Thor and thunder? and why do you blame me for it?

This seems to be a bit of a tactic amongst your ilk at the moment.
Jack knave states that theism has fallen because of science. Hillside accuses me of stating that science supports atheism.

Hillside brings up Thor and thunder as the example for the fate that will befall a divine solution to the origins of the universe and you accuse me of bringing up the very thing I object to as a straw man.

It is an example, Vlad, of a divine belief that has been superseded by knowledge: geocentricity is another example.

Your 'divine solution to the origins of the universe' is, of course, an example of begging the question and misses the point: which is that science isn't expressly supporting atheism since the 'divine' is outwith the scope of science, and in any event there is no method to investigate this 'divine'.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is an example, Vlad, of a divine belief that has been superseded by knowledge: geocentricity is another example.

Your 'divine solution to the origins of the universe' is, of course, an example of begging the question and misses the point: which is that science isn't expressly supporting atheism since the 'divine' is outwith the scope of science, and in any event there is no method to investigate this 'divine'.
 

Gordon.....as you are just here exclusively to point out the fallacies of theists.

I am here to remind antitheists of their heritage of shite philosophy, that they are working from philosophical assumptions themselves and from the mere et pere of circular arguments and to remind them that science does not support those assumptions.

Look Gordon you either agree that science will somehow find the origin of the universe or you don't. I don't...for scientific reasons. You might because you don't really understand science.

That religion has no methodology i.e. is not science is not in question. But then neither has atheism nor antitheism. If Hillside is a true methodological materialist without philosophy then he therefore should have nothing to say about religion and should have never have ventured on this board or should now have the honesty to leave it.

[Gordon]

Gordon.....as you are just here exclusively to point out the fallacies of theists.

Nope - I'm a non-discriminatory pointer-outer of fallacies.

I am here to remind antitheists of their heritage of shite philosophy, that they are working from philosophical assumptions themselves and from the mere et pere of circular arguments and to remind them that science does not support those assumptions.

There's your problem then: those you presume to be anti-theist (in your terms) probably aren't and, further, you also presume to misrepresent them by ascribing to them arguments they don't make via your army of straw-men.

Look Gordon you either agree that science will somehow find the origin of the universe or you don't. I don't...for scientific reasons. You might because you don't really understand science.

Right on cue!

That religion has no methodology i.e. is not science is not in question. But then neither has atheism nor antitheism.

I'd be more inclined to say that there is no method to examine non-natural claims, and as far as I can see not all religious people require their religious beliefs to be investigated anyway: they accept them on the basis of their personal faith. Leaving aside your 'antitheism' jibe, which is spurious, I'm struggling to understand why you think atheism requires a methodology.

 

If Hillside is a true methodological materialist without philosophy then he therefore should have nothing to say about religion and should have never have ventured on this board or should now have the honesty to leave it.

I see we've returned to the straw man (with an implied ad hom on top).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm not sure what you are arguing about now but you seemed to be saying I support the idea that atheism supports science. I don't and I never have.

I’ve said no such thing.

There is no war between science and religion as far as I am concerned. You on the other hand frequently try to use science in arguments against religion.

Possibly you missed the posts when I told you to stop lying? (Wearily…) I merely say that, when those with religious beliefs try to play on science’s turf to validate those beliefs, they lose.

Example Thunder and Thor where you are effectively saying that eventually there will be a natural non divine answer for the origins of everything.

NOOOOOOOOOO! FFS!

What I am actually saying is that, when you don’t have a cogent explanation for something, just dropping in “God”/Thor/whatever to fill the explanatory gap when those answers actually explain nothing at all is a bad idea. 

If you have another position then you have every opportunity to state it.

I have done. Over and over and over and over……

....and over and over and over again. That you either cannot grasp it or wilfully choose to misrepresent it however is a matter for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Then why does hillside keep bringing up Thor and thunder? and why do you blame me for it?

I bring it up because it’s precisely the construction you attempt when you say, “science cannot explain X, therefore God”.

This seems to be a bit of a tactic amongst your ilk at the moment.

It’s an analogy, but yes.

Jack knave states that theism has fallen because of science. Hillside accuses me of stating that science supports atheism.

Actually the word you used was “promotes”, but ok. You also incidentally tell us that it’s them thar “antitheistic scientists” wot do it.

Hillside brings up Thor and thunder as the example for the fate that will befall a divine solution to the origins of the universe and you accuse me of bringing up the very thing I object to as a straw man.

But what you just said is a straw man! That’s not why I use the analogy at all – see my previous post for details.

And this from someone who claimed the intellectual high ground a few posts ago?

I need a lie down…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What I am actually saying is that, when you don’t have a cogent explanation for something, just dropping in “God”/Thor/whatever to fill the explanatory gap when those answers actually explain nothing at all is a bad idea. 

Strawman argument. Theists whose sole activity is to say that Goddidit is an ignorant antitheist caricature.
In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like. Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.

Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe. To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.

Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.

So either you believe that religion is failed science or you don't.

Filling the explanatory gap is fine but if you claim to have no idea what will fill it you cannot say Not God or God wouldn't fill it.

My next mission on this board will be to analyse various antitheistisms such as ''filling the explanatory gap'' and ''I'ts not philosophical materialism it's just a working assumption that material is all there is''. I've done the latter....it's a complete pisstake.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd be more inclined to say that there is no method to examine non-natural claims, and as far as I can see not all religious people require their religious beliefs to be investigated anyway: they accept them on the basis of their personal faith. Leaving aside your 'antitheism' jibe, which is spurious, I'm struggling to understand why you think atheism requires a methodology.

Then you are special pleading. If at any point in your argument you are stating that a methodology for holding a position is all important...presenting a case for an exemption is special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Strawman argument. Theists whose sole activity is to say that Goddidit is an ignorant antitheist caricature.

But that’s your argument! “Science can’t explain “popping out of nothing”/”always there”, therefore God”.

If you want to try a different argument that’s fine, but you can't accuse someone of a straw man (you of all people!) for holding up a mirror to the argument you’ve attempted

In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like. Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.

Because it’s not true. If you really think there are “perfectly sound reasons” then finally tell us what they are. So far, all you have is the god of the gaps fallacy.

Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe.

Why? "Has to be" isn't an argument" - it's just an assertion.

To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.

That you have just asserted something with no logic to support it isn’t “reason”. Positing “why” here is called begging the question – it requires an intelligent something to decide on the why, at which point the same “why” question attaches to that something.

Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.

And he rounds of with the fallacy of reification. Good effort! Theists “support” that conjecture because of their belief in a god – in various gods in fact. 

So either you believe that religion is failed science or you don't.

Non sequitur – actually what I believe religion to be is failed reasoning, as you’ve amply displayed here.

Filling the explanatory gap is fine but if you claim to have no idea what will fill it you cannot say Not God or God wouldn't fill it.

Or leprechauns. Or the flying spaghetti monster. Or god’s dad. Why do you think a negative proof fallacy helps you? 

My next mission on this board will be to analyse various antitheistisms such as ''filling the explanatory gap'' and ''I'ts not philosophical materialism it's just a working assumption that material is all there is''. I've done the latter....it's a complete pisstake.

As epic fails go, this latest post of yours pretty much takes the garibaldi. Can I suggest therefore that your next “mission” should instead be finally to attempt at least some arguments that aren’t hopeless or dishonest?

You're welcome.

[Stranger]

In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like. Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.

How about you post some of these reasons?

Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe. To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.

You say that you don't know why god exists - so, as I've said repeatedly - it gets you nowhere: there is an exactly equivalent "anti reason", "cop out" and adoption of "dogmatic agnosticism" (as you so inaccurately put it) if you propose a god.

It's a baseless guess that adds nothing in terms of explaining the reason why stuff exists.

Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.

Something that is quite obviously unreliable as the vast number of god concepts and other superstition "based on experience" in human history clearly demonstrate.

[Gordon]

Then you are special pleading. If at any point in your argument you are stating that a methodology for holding a position is all important...presenting a case for an exemption is special pleading.

I'm not presenting a case for an exemption: atheism is the rejection of the claims of theists, but you know this already (or you should if you've been paying attention).

[Gordon]

In philosophy, theists stick to perfectly sound reasons for proposing a creator and what a creator and sustainer would have to do and be like.

How come then that all these reasons are exposed as being incoherent or fallacious (unless you see demonstrating fallacies as being worthwhile.

Atheists of philosophical calibre recognise that.

No - although they do recognise when fallacies are being deployed.

Furthermore there has to be a reason for the universe.

'Has'?
 

To suspend reason at this juncture is a cop out and anti reason itself. Antitheists such as Russell, Dawkins and yourself give up at this point and adopt a dogmatic agnosticism.

Before you start suspending reason you'll need to start using some first!

Finally theists support creation/sustainer theory because of their experience of God.

No doubt they honestly think that.

So either you believe that religion is failed science or you don't.

Which is a false dichotomy.

Filling the explanatory gap is fine but if you claim to have no idea what will fill it you cannot say Not God or God wouldn't fill it.

You'd need to method to support the 'God' hypothesis that includes its attributes in terms of gap-filling - got one?

My next mission on this board will be to analyse various antitheistisms such as ''filling the explanatory gap'' and ''I'ts not philosophical materialism it's just a working assumption that material is all there is''. I've done the latter....it's a complete pisstake.

Good luck with that, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But that’s your argument! “Science can’t explain “popping out of nothing”/”always there”, therefore God”.

A ridiculous reduction from a ridiculous reducer.

You cannot engage with any theist without recourse to such antics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not presenting a case for an exemption: atheism is the rejection of the claims of theists, but you know this already (or you should if you've been paying attention).

if it is a rejection then by what methodology do you reject? I'm sure Nearly Sane in his better mood would put you straight on this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How about you post some of these reasons?

You say that you don't know why god exists - so, as I've said repeatedly - it gets you nowhere: there is an exactly equivalent "anti reason", "cop out" and adoption of "dogmatic agnosticism" (as you so inaccurately put it) if you propose a god.

It's a baseless guess that adds nothing in terms of explaining the reason why stuff exists.

Something that is quite obviously unreliable as the vast number of god concepts and other superstition "based on experience" in human history clearly demonstrate.

I have stated these and have given links to both theistic philosophers and atheistic philosophers eg Feser, Ruse and Nagel (cue ad hominem).
New atheists have not engaged philosophically because of lack of training and lack of wanting to train.
If you are convicted like Hawking that philosophy is finished...science has done for it you have burned your boats.

[Gordon]

if it is a rejection then by what methodology do you reject? I'm sure Nearly Sane in his better mood would put you straight on this.

I reject them by simply pointing out that the arguments presented by theists are invariably fallacious, else they are incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But that’s your argument! “Science can’t explain “popping out of nothing”/”always there”, therefore God”.

No.....therefore something...but science is not up to the job. Can you deny that or do you wish to cling to the idea of eventually getting someone in a white coat in there somehow?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A ridiculous reduction from a ridiculous reducer.

You cannot engage with any theist without recourse to such antics.

But it’s your argument – why else would you bang on about the universe “popping out of nothing”/”being eternal” etc? What relevance does that have to your belief in a god?

A don’t know is just a don’t know. It tells you nothing about alternative explanations that also present “don’t knows” to the same questions.

If you think you have a different argument though, by all means try it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No.....therefore something...

But that "something"could be any something at all, including a scientific answer that we haven'y yet found out. How does that help you?

...and  but science is not up to the job.

As it wasn't before the true cause of thunder was discovered. So?

Can you deny that or do you wish to cling to the idea of eventually getting someone in a white coat in there somehow?

Deny what? That science often comes up with "don't knows"? Why should I - it has always been so about all sorts of things (that's why people still do science), and for all I know may always be for some phenomena. Do you deny that that tells you the square root of bugger all about the likelihood or otherwise of your or any other god?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have stated these…

Stop lying.

… and have given links to both theistic philosophers and atheistic philosophers eg Feser, Ruse and Nagel (cue ad hominem).

Whose arguments have routinely been falsified here. How does that help you?

New atheists have not engaged philosophically because of lack of training and lack of wanting to train.

Stop lying and start reading.

If you are convicted like Hawking that philosophy is finished...science has done for it you have burned your boats.

Science is all we have if we want explanations that are distinguishable from guessing. If you’re satisfied with that though, stick with religion and dishonesty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

But it’s your argument – why else would you bang on about the universe “popping out of nothing”/”being eternal” etc? What relevance does that have to your belief in a god?

A don’t know is just a don’t know. It tells you nothing about alternative explanations that also present “don’t knows” to the same questions.

If you think you have a different argument though, by all means try it.

This is both pathetic and hilarious.
If not created by something other than nature. Then nature either has to pop out of absolute nothing or have existed for ever.

If you accept that on behalf of the universe and count those as qualities of the universe but as things that disqualify God from existing then that is special pleading and contradicting your own argument.

Were it a don't know that would be fine but it seems like a don't know but we know it isn't God particularly in your hands.

To say I don't know because science cannot tell us and there is no other way of knowing is a philosophical position.

However scientists have said this could be a simulated universe so the ''who created God'' issue would be valid but then so would God...The creator of this universe be valid as a filler of the explanatory gap since what would the answer be to how would this simulated universe come about ? Answer? the creator.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Whose arguments have routinely been falsified here. How does that help you?

Citation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This is both pathetic and hilarious.

If not created by something other than nature. Then nature either has to pop out of absolute nothing or have existed for ever.

That doesn’t follow (there’s no reason to the think the universe had to be “created” at all) but if you really want to go with it then you give yourself exactly the same problem for “God” – what outside of god created god?

Don’t tell me, let me guess: "it’s magic innit".

If you accept that on behalf of the universe and count those as qualities of the universe but as things that disqualify God from existing…

No-one has ever said that these “qualities” “disqualify God from existing”. All that’s being said is that the very bad arguments you attempt for "God" give no reason to think that a god does exists.

Why do you keep lying about this?

… then that is special pleading and contradicting your own argument.

No, it’s just catching you out in yet another lie

Were it a don't know that would be fine but it seems like a don't know but we know it isn't God particularly in your hands.

Why do you keep lying about this? “There’s no reason to think there is a god” and “we know it isn’t God” are not the same thing at all. Why is this so difficult for you?

To say I don't know because science cannot tell us and there is no other way of knowing is a philosophical position.

It might be if ever you could find someone who actually said that. Presumably you’re wedded to this straw man though just so you can demolish it in the hope that no-one notices that it tells you nothing whatever about the likelihood of your or any other god.

However scientists have said this could be a simulated universe so the ''who created God'' issue would be valid but then so would God...The creator of this universe be valid as a filler of the explanatory gap since what would the answer be to how would this simulated universe come about ? Answer? the creator.

Who might have a creator of his own, who might have had etc etc.  Anything is possible, despite your relentless lying about people claiming otherwise. How though does “anything is possible” take you even one step closer to the conjecture “god”?