What Convinced you God Exists?

[Paulomycin]

What makes your creation myth better than any other?

Creationism is presuppositional.

Natural theology does not begin with Creationism.

Get it right.

 

[HitchSlap]

Creationism is presuppositional.

Natural theology does not begin with Creationism.

Get it right.

Myths are a dime a dozen.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You literally said that it was your position. You're obviously not trying to know. Because everything has to be filtered through your presupposed confirmation bias of atheism.

It is my position. If you cannot understand this I cannot help you.

 

[Lion IRC]

Myths are a dime a dozen.

Throw away lines like that are a nickel a dozen.
How about something more substantive than labelling stuff 'myths?
Youre just calling it a myth without any rationalization. I thought rational skeptics were supposed to offer reasoning and evidence.

He doesn't care to understand.

Don't put words in his mouth. Moreover, don't falsely attribute motives to someone who clearly DOES seek to understand. Thats bad faith dialogue and your hitchslap namesake shtick is getting unpleasant.

 

[Paulomycin]

Myths are a dime a dozen.

You're still not looking it up.

 

[Paulomycin]

It is my position. If you cannot understand this I cannot help you.

"It is my position, but it is not my argument," is a contradiction.

So which is it?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

"It is my position, but it is not my argument," is a contradiction.

So which is it?

I am not making an argument for the "I don't know" position. I have made no claim. I am simply telling you I do not know how the universe got here.

 

[Paulomycin]

I am not making an argument for the "I don't know" position. I have made no claim. I am simply telling you I do not know how the universe got here.

You should at the very least be willing to accept the current science that the universe had a beginning.

From there, you should be able to logically infer the necessity of a cause. You know, if you're a rational person that doesn't completely hate logic.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You should at the very least be willing to accept the current science that the universe had a beginning.

From there, you should be able to logically infer the necessity of a cause. You know, if you're a rational person that doesn't completely hate logic.

Where have I said I do not accept the universe had a beginning or it was caused? Really, show me the post?

I believe the universe had a beginning and I believe there was a cause. I have never said anything different. All I have said is I don't know what that cause is.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Don't put words in his mouth. Moreover, don't falsely attribute motives to someone who clearly DOES seek to understand. Thats bad faith dialogue and your hitchslap namesake shtick is getting unpleasant.

So when he puts words in atheists mouths that is ok right? He does this every post.

 

[Paulomycin]

I believe the universe had a beginning and I believe there was a cause. I have never said anything different. All I have said is I don't know what that cause is.

Awesome. Thank you. Here's how you can know:

To account for ultimate cause, the only options (via deductive elimination*) are as follows:

1. Chance
2. Intent
3. A material cause.

#3. invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.

#1. "Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.

Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Conclusion: It was done intentionally on-purpose.

*Meaning that, until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

Welcome to Deism. Atheism has been falsified, yadda yadda.

 

[Paulomycin]

So when he puts words in atheists mouths that is ok right? He does this every post.

It's ok because I'm totally open to correction. Atheists are evasive by nature. It's literally like herding cats. They won't outright admit to anything and must be aggressively cornered.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Awesome. Thank you. Here's how you can know:

To account for ultimate cause, the only options (via deductive elimination*) are as follows:

1. Chance
2. Intent
3. A material cause.

How have you determined these are the only categories of a cause?

#3. invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.

You have not demonstrated this leads to an infinite regress or that a first cause cannot be natural occurring.

#1. "Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.

I agree chance is not a reasonable explanation.

Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

The problem is how can you know you have eliminated other possible solutions? Refer to my answer above.

Conclusion: It was done intentionally on-purpose.

*Meaning that, until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

Welcome to Deism. Atheism has been falsified, yadda yadda.

I make no claim and I don't have to bring forth any solutions. You have not demonstrated this is sound.

If a magician does a trick that I cannot figure out am I warranted to then believe in magic? How do I know that the magician is not doing something I don't understand? Then my stance should be 'I don't know" how the magician did the trick until I get more evidence either way.

 

[Paulomycin]

How have you determined these are the only categories of a cause?

Because no additional options have been presented. Nor can there be. This is how deductive elimination works. You cannot place some "provisional empty placeholder" for what you cannot produce yourself. If you're taking a test, you cannot answer all the questions with "other," and then fail to specify. It's a deliberate cop-out on your part.

You have not demonstrated this leads to an infinite regress or that a first cause cannot be natural occurring.

Because I assumed you were intelligent enough to recognize it outright! This is what I have to deal with here! If I'm not downright filthy condescending towards you 24/7, you'll just bottom-out on me when I give you credit for the brains you have.

*inhale*

A (finite) material cause necessarily accounting for our (finite) material universe will necessarily require yet another finite material cause before that--and then another to account for that one. . .and then another to account for that one, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. Again, it's nothing more than a secular version of "Turtles All The Way Down."

I make no claim and I don't have to bring forth any solutions. You have not demonstrated this is sound.

Because you made nothing more than an empty assertion. You cannot point to any specific errors in my logic to show it is unsound.

If a magician does a trick that I cannot figure out am I warranted to then believe in magic?

No tricks. I'm playing with cards face-up on the table here.

How do I know that the magician is not doing something I don't understand?

Again, you're just playing stupid to weasel out of it. I'm giving you credit for the brains you have. Deductive elimination isn't rocket science at all here. It's extraordinary evidence due to its parsimony. You don't need "more evidence," because it's a proof; not evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nor can there be.

Prove it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Prove it.

^ Asking me to prove a negative. How many times is this now?

 

[Moral Orel]

^ Asking me to prove a negative. How many times is this now?

What's wrong with proving a negative?

Nor can there be.

I never assert anything without evidence. Ev-er.

 

[Paulomycin]

I never assert anything without evidence. Ev-er.

Don't start that garbage again. "Assert" = positive assertions.

What's wrong with proving a negative?

Fine. Prove God doesn't exist, and don't weasel out if it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Fine.

Fine? Okay, prove "nor can there be" any additional options presented. And don't weasel out of it!

 

[cvanwey]

Awesome. Thank you. Here's how you can know:

To account for ultimate cause, the only options (via deductive elimination*) are as follows:

1. Chance
2. Intent
3. A material cause.

#3. invokes an infinite regress, which is completely irrational. "Turtles All The Way Down" applies equally to cosmological claims as it does to theistic claims.

#1. "Chance" is not a thing-in-itself. Voltaire argued that chance is a placeholder for "we don't know." You need material dice to actually roll them to begin with. Thus, chance is eliminated.

Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Conclusion: It was done intentionally on-purpose.

*Meaning that, until you can actually bring a fourth option (or more), then all rational options have been cited.

Welcome to Deism. Atheism has been falsified, yadda yadda.

Second request -- (from the bottom of post #94).

Great! Now maybe you can address post #85? According to your own methodology(s), how does a deist go from a generic deist, all the way to a Christian?