Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Nearly Sane]

No I only mentioned the abstract.

Which illustrates your badly informed shallow approach that leads to the tsunami of drivel ( which would be an accurate pseudonym for you) that you post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The abstract tells you nothing about the actual arguments presented. It's a bit like saying 'I found the back cover notes on a book interesting but never bothered to actually read the book'.

And that is a crime? You are falling into the trap of turning religious belief into everything you don't like. Then things as trivial as finding the back cover notes but not the book quite serious offences.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which illustrates your badly informed shallow approach that leads to the tsunami of drivel ( which would be an accurate pseudonym for you) that you post.

Drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which illustrates your badly informed shallow approach that leads to the tsunami of drivel ( which would be an accurate pseudonym for you) that you post.

I never mentioned the full report.

[Nearly Sane]

I never mentioned the full report.

Drivel cubed

[Nearly Sane]

Drivel.

Plagiaristic drivel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Plagiaristic drivel

You are calling drivel, drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel cubed

Repetitive drivel

[Stranger]

You do not take other peoples ideas seriously because you feel safer where you are and that is deeply into empiricist and naturalistic philosophy.

You need to ask for a refund from your mind-reading course.

To me there are 3 possible reasons for the universe personal creator, infinite universe, spontaneous appearance. To dismiss( an act in itself) the first can only be achieved by mental contortion.

I've already explained firstly, why your list does not contain all the possibilities, and secondly, why speculation about a "personal creator" doesn't actually address the problem of existence at all and is therefore nothing but a pointless guess.

I have no idea why something exists rather than nothing, or something entirely different, but guessing about a creator doesn't address the problem. Therefore you have failed to give a sound reason to take your guess seriously. For clarity, I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's an unjustified guess.

[Nearly Sane]

Repetitive drivel

Accurate post describing your own posting, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You need to ask for a refund from your mind-reading course.

I've already explained firstly, why your list does not contain all the possibilities, and secondly, why speculation about a "personal creator" doesn't actually address the problem of existence at all and is therefore nothing but a pointless guess.

It's not about the problem of existence it's about the possibility of a personal creator or not.

[Nearly Sane]

You are calling drivel, drivel.

Another accurate post from Vlad pointing out that I am indeed calling his posts drivel  and admitting that his posts are drivel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another accurate post from Vlad pointing out that I am indeed calling his posts drivel  and admitting that his posts are drivel.

Drivel.

[Nearly Sane]

Drivel.

It is so much better that Vlad has decided just to accept that he writes drivel, and now posts it in its concentrated form rather than the tedious badly thought out posts filled with lying and evasion of previous posts. This will save a lot of everyone's time.

[jeremyp]

Science does not do God

that's a very bold claim. What's your justification that any putative god is outside of science?

[Nearly Sane]

that's a very bold claim. What's your justification that any putative god is outside of science?

If you take it that any 'god' is a supernatural entity then it would be unfalsifiable by a naturalist methodology.

That said, if  any 'god' is a supernatural claim then, in the absence of any supernatural methodology, it is just white noise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

that's a very bold claim. What's your justification that any putative god is outside of science?

His independent existence from time space and matter and energy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That said, if  any 'god' is a supernatural claim then, in the absence of any supernatural methodology, it is just white noise.

Philosophically naturalistic.

[Nearly Sane]

Philosophically naturalistic.

Damn, just when you were doing so well  you had to go back to the lying, and the philosophically illiterate drivel. But i have to admire the succintness and how you can pack so much fail into 2 words.

[Stranger]

It's not about the problem of existence it's about the possibility of a personal creator or not.

Nobody here (that I'm aware of) denies the possibility - as you've been told many, many times. What's missing is any reason to think the possibility is in the least bit probable. That is, we have no reason to take it seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody here (that I'm aware of) denies the possibility - as you've been told many, many times. What's missing is any reason to think the possibility is in the least bit probable. That is, we have no reason to take it seriously.

What are your grounds for thinking it improbable? Why do you not take it seriously since it is an either or question.

[Stranger]

What are your grounds for thinking it improbable? Why do you not take it seriously since it is an either or question.

Because it's a blind guess with no supporting reasoning, evidence, or alternative methodology to investigate it with. In addition, what evidence we do have about "personal creators" is that they arise via evolution, which requires biology, which requires a universe. We have no evidence of personal creators that are independent of biology, let alone of the universe.

And it isn't really an either or question because we could make endless guesses about things or beings or some other wider context that might caused, or allowed for the existence of, the universe - and some of them have the advantage of being extrapolations of what we already have evidence for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because it's a blind guess with no supporting reasoning,

Bollocks.

[Stranger]

Because it's a blind guess with no supporting reasoning,

Bollocks.

You'll be able to supply reasoning and/or evidence, then. Jolly good, off you go....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bollocks.


You'll be able to supply reasoning and/or evidence, then. Jolly good, off you go....

If it has no reasoning why do you say it's possible?
We know from the argument from contingency that the necessary may not be observable.
The absence of chaos or the presence of order.
Cosmic Fine tuning.
I could say I discount philosophical naturalism as unreasonable because science cannot establish it. But I don't... I just think God free isn't the case.