What convinced you the universe alone is all that exists?

[Lion IRC]

Do you take the claim that, "the universe alone is all that exists," on faith? <--Yes or no.

Its either a belief or a fact claim.
If its a belief, that's fine. However confident atheists are about their beliefs, it is still a matter of confidence.

"Confident"
/ˈkɒnfɪd(ə)nt/
adjective.
From the Latin con fide...with faith.

If its not a faith-based belief, then I expect atheists to shoulder their burden of persuasion. The burden they insist upon when interrogating theists.

 

[Moral Orel]

If its not a faith-based belief, then I expect atheists to shoulder their burden of persuasion. The burden they insist upon when interrogating theists.

I expect any atheist who would make such a claim to carry that burden too. There ain't many that would make such a claim though. That type of atheist is a rarity.

 

[Paulomycin]

I expect any atheist who would make such a claim to carry that burden too. There ain't many that would make such a claim though. That type of atheist is a rarity.

^ Oh? lol. Thanks for proving this for me:

According to most atheists.

Prove it. That's a positive claim, no weaseling out. It ain't according to the atheist you cited in your thread, lol.

 

[Moral Orel]

^ Oh? lol. Thanks for proving this for me:

It does not. Most atheists do not make the claim "The universe alone is all that exists". And you're saying that because they don't make that claim, they do claim there's a rule about proving negatives? Nonsense. Complete nonsense.

I know that you really, really, really want "I don't believe there is" to be the same thing as "I believe there is no" but you're just going to have to accept that it ain't. And insisting that it is, is nothing but a really weak, overused strawman.

 

[Paulomycin]

It does not. Most atheists do not make the claim "The universe alone is all that exists".

Yes. It's the only way they can possibly justify their atheism.

And you're saying that because they don't make that claim, they do claim there's a rule about proving negatives? Nonsense. Complete nonsense.

^ Words in my mouth. I clearly stated they are making that claim. Even when they don't say it outright in so many words, it is clearly implied.

I know that you really, really, really want "I don't believe there is" to be the same thing as "I believe there is no" but you're just going to have to accept that it ain't. And insisting that it is, is nothing but a really weak, overused strawman.

But since you can't actually explain the difference, you'll just insist you did anyway, when you can't even cough up a direct verbatum quote of yours from the past.

 

[Amoranemix]

Forgive me for my ignorance as to how to put quotes within quotes like you guys do so well. Bear with me.

I tend to do that manually like this (with the orientation of the square brackets switched) : ]quote=Mark Quayle 61[ quoted text ]/quote[
You can nest them, but the system seems unsuitable for much nesting.

[1] I notice you were careful not to say, "A thing creating itself is not illogical." You only ask how my points prove it! I guess I need to expand a bit, since you asked, though you implied you would not ask since they were off topic. Often I say something that seems to me to bring obvious implications with it, that are somehow not obvious to others. "A thing cannot cause itself to exist" because it would first have to exist to be able to cause anything.[14] It also "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" because beginning necessarily implies causation, if nothing else, the principle by which it began --therefore, not spontaneity.[15]

[14] So you claim, but can you prove that ? I suggest you ponder what assumptions you are implicitely making.
[15] I suspect it is possible to define 'spontaneously beginning to exist' such that it is impossible, but I also suspect it is possible to define it such that 'spontaneously beginning to exist' is possible.
Before drawing a conclusion on causation, you should also define it.

[2] "A thing that exists, is either first cause, or was caused." Perhaps I should put the logical link in there, that "cannot spontaneously begin to exist" rules out Spontaneity of existence, period, by definition of the word 'spontaneous'. It is not a static word. So, other than spontaneity, do you have another option besides 'caused to exist' and 'self-existent'?

[16] If all I have to do with concepts is invent a name for them without sharing and probably not even knowing what I am talking about, as Christians often do, then sure, I can think of other options.

You say:
You appear to reason as follows :
P1. I don't know how something could cause itself to exist.
P2. It would be covenient for my faith if nothing could cause itself to exist.
C. Therefore, it is impossible for something to cause itself to exist.

That is not what I argue, not how I reason. I wonder how it appeared to you that way.

You shared several conclusions in that category without presenting the rest of their arguments and that is in my experience how Christians typically reach such conclusions. It could be that you are an exception.

[3] I thought I had just explained.Chance or randomness causing anything, is self-contradictory.[17] But furthermore, as has been said by others, 'Chance is just a placeholder for "I don't know".'

[17] I am confident it is possible to define chance, randomness and causing such that your claim is true.
Your (other) claim in post 26 was : “The 'infinitesimal speck' from which the BB proceeded was mechanical fact, and on top of everything else one might say about it, bears the evidences of being acted upon or produced (created) with purpose/ design since it obviously resulted in specificity and not homogeneity.”
You still have not explained why it would be so that it bears the evidence.

[6] There atheists who disbelieve there is any god and atheists who disbelieve in specific gods.

So you slide out from under my point.

What does that mean ?

Reality does not care about your aversions.

Truth doesn't have any relationship to claims or feelings. So what. Is that your defense of infinite regression?

No.

If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open. Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.

You are talking with Paulo here, but I can't help but jump in. He and I were talking not long ago about this habit atheists have, that often when they see their defense eroding, they quickly, lest they lose the debate, revert to something like, "Well, even if you are right about Omnipotence (or First Cause)(or even First Cause With Intent) you still have to prove that it is the Christian God!" Like, "AHA! Got you on THAT one!"

If you based your beliefs on reason and evidence, you could gloat about winning arguments i.s.o. being reduced to gloating about having caused atheists difficulty. I understand though that abandoning God-belief is too steep a price.

[9] So you claim, but can you prove that ?

Here, you are implicitly claiming. . .

I intepret your follow-up as an attempt to prove your claim.

Reality does not care about your aversions.

. . .a secular reality without evidence. Since you are an atheist, and since you are unwilling to honestly suspend your atheism for any length of time, then that is your implicit claim.

Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. Amoranemix claims : “Reality does not care about Mark Quayle's aversions”
P2. Amoranemix is unwilling to honestly suspend his atheism for any length of time.
P3. Therefore, Amoranemix claims a secular reality without evidence.
C. Therefore, Amoranemix presupposes a secular reality.

Is that indeed your argument ?
It is invalid, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

It seems that the answer to the question is no : you cannot prove your claim.

Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Call it a gamble that I end up winning 99% of the time, because I'm leveraging a perceived forced incredulity. I'm predicting that it will repeat itself.

I prefer to call it what it is.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.

Has ontological naturalism ever been objectively refuted ?

It is objectively self-refuting. To appeal to naturalistic means to justify naturalism is arguing in a circle. For that reason (but not that reason alone), ontological naturalism is an extremely weak position.

So we have your claim that you have never been objectively refuted and your claim that ontological naturalism is objectively refuted. If the latter is true, then I don't believe in it and I suspect few skeptics do.

I haven't noticed anyone suggesting that matter has continuously multiplied on and on for eternity past.

Of course no one on your side is going to suggest any of this in any specified detail, because the fallacy of vagueness is an excellent tool for epistemic cover.[18] Atheists generally hate complete transparency.[19] Once all the specific options are considered in detail, the results are unavoidable.

[18] The people 'from my side' fail to to suggest that in any specified detail for various reasons, but I doubt the one you are claiming is a popular one. Personally, I don't believe matter behaves that way.
[19] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Anyway, since no one claimed matter to behave that way, for whatever reason, your rebuttal was a straw man fallacy.

How so ? Occam's razor doesn't claim that there cannot be more than one of something. If it did, skeptics would better reject it.

The actual definition of Occam's razor is, "entities should not be multiplied without necessity."[20] In this case, it refers to materialist entities that are multiplied without necessity to an infinite regress. It's a complete trainwreck of logic that ultimately answers nothing (because infinity).[21]

[20] First, that is the original formulation of William of Ockham. You seem to only rely on it because it supports your position. However, it fails to be good predictor of the real world when applied literally. There are many cases where there is likely more than one of something in absense of necessity that there be more than one.
Second, the principle is a guideline about which hypothesis to favour if competing hypotheses are otherwise equivalent. So it doesn't come close to being strong evidence, let alone proof.
[21] No, it is not. It is a hypothesis.

You are assuming that your favourite hypotheses must be true because that would render obsolete the other hypothesis. That reasoning is however fallacious. It could otherwise also be used to render your favourite hypothesis obsolete. The simplest hypothesis that explains the evidence is to be preferred and complexity is not solely determined by the number of instances a hypothesis contains.

First, it's not even a scientific hypothesis at all. It's a logical proof.[22] You should know the difference. Logical proofs are absolute. Second, even scientific hypotheses cannot be irrational proposals in and of themselves. Logical soundness should be the 1st test that a hypothesis is even coherently communicable. Infinite causal loops (a.) or an eternal finite materialism (b.) are never rational proposals.The first is an infinite regress (an indirect contradiction) and the second is a brute contradiction that finite matter is eternal.[23]

[22] You are mistaken. What you have presented is not proof, but a bad argument, as I have explained. However, there might be confusion about the discussed argument. What argument are you claiming is proof ?
[23] These seem to be the premises you use to try prove conclusions (a.) and (b.). What is an indirekt contradiction and how is it supposed to demonstrate that infinite causal loops are never a rational proposal ? I don't know what eternal finite materialism is, so I won't bother you with a proof challenge for that.

Claims of possibility (speculation) require less evidence than claims of fact. The vaguer a claim, the less evidence it requires. If that speculation already requires evidence, then most of your unevidenced claims of fact are woefully undersupported.

Because you magically assert that is the case, rather than demonstrate specifically how my facts are "undersupported."

No, that is not the reason. Given how you belittle others for their alleged lack of reasoning abilities, I find it hard to believe that you would doubt what I was trying to convey, so I'll assume you misunderstood.

I'll compare two example claims to illustrate what I meant :

“A small object may be orbiting the moon” is a vague claim of possibility.
“A small, man-made object is orbiting the moon” is a less vague claim of fact.

The second claim requires more support to make a point or be as likely true as the first.
You made unevidenced claims of fact that are more specific than jayem's claim of possibility of post 56 that you criticized in post 57.

If I understand correctly, your argument is the following :

P1. Paulomycin's god is by definition omnipotent.[a]
P2. An omnipotent being is necessary to explain the world.[b ]
C. Therefore Paulomycin's god exists.

I suspect omniscience is included in your definition of omnipotence.
Further you attempt to demonstrate P1.

[a]No. The definition is not a premise. Definitions are necessary before arguments even commence. Otherwise, you people will attempt to trip me up on "which god" and the ambiguity of god(s). I propose to prove an omnipotent being, then the proof follows the claim.
[b ] You're omitting either the causal argument I posted, or the modus ponens I posted after that.

[a] Dude. Don't be a grammar nazi. I was not trying to trick you. I agree that is a definition i.s.a. premise.
[b ] I think I quoted everything from post 60 regarding that argument.

If you were to be successful, that would still leave 2 problems. First, it leaves God's morality open.

If "god" is subordinate to a higher standard of morality, then that god is not omnipotent. Therefore, strawman.

You are mistaken. Regardless of whether God is subordinate to some external standard of morality or not, his moral standard can epistemically be any moral standard.

Second, when skeptics refer to the Christian god, they are usually referring to an entity equipped with plenty of religious baggage, like claims found in the Bible. Proving an omniscient, omnipotent being would thus still give no good reason to believe in Yahweh.

Don't get ahead of yourself. Once an omnipotent being is proven, then atheism is falsified. Omnipotence automatically infers the "potential" of both omniscience as well as omnipresence. Furthermore, it infers moral non-contingency.

The rest becomes a debate over assumed "religious baggage," that atheists have since failed to demonstrate.[24] Insistent assertions and gainsaying are never equal to a real argument. It only makes atheists the entitled Karens of the universe.

[24] You are correct. Atheists have so far been unable to demonstrate the assumed religious baggage attached to God.
So, even if you were able to prove the existence of an omnipotent being, it would only be a small step towards proving the existence of the Christian god.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – Stephen Hawking

Which is irrational.[25]
1.) "create itself" is a self-refuting argument.[26] In-order for anything to create itself, it must be its own creator, which means that it would have to exist before it was, which means it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship.[27] That violates the most fundamental law of reason—the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, the concept of self-creation is manifestly absurd, contradictory, and irrational. To hold to such a view is bad science and equally bad philosophy and theology, because both philosophy and science rest upon the ironclad laws of reason. Theology should too. Otherwise, I'd still be an atheist myself.

[25] Stephen Hawking saying something allegedly irrational did not prevent you from using him as an authority.
[26] You are mistaken. That is not an argument, but a claim. Before criticizing an ambiguous claim, like you are doing, you should disambiguate it. In this case you should use the meaning Hawking intended, so that you would criticize what he said i.s.o. what you would have liked him to say. He was probably referring to the no boundary proposal. So is up to the proponents of that hypothesis to decide what 'creating itself' means.
[27] That does not follow. You are using the same fallacious kind of reasoning Mark Quayle denied using in post 61 : You don't understand how something could be, it would suit your faith that it could not be, thus it must be impossible.
You are basically accusing the proponents of the no boundary proposal to commit a basic reasoning error, which is implausible.

Obviously I don't buy your alleged proofs,[a] but criticizing them here would probably lead to too long an off topic discussion. If you post one in its own thread I may find time to challenge it there.[b ]

[a] Because your knee-jerk incredulity is performing exactly as I predicted.
[b ] Or, I can simply assume you're either unable to rationally criticize them, or incapable. Regardless, my proofs remain unrefuted. So no worries.

[a] No, that is not the reason. I don't buy them because they look fallacious.
[b ] 1) You have not presented your alleged proofs, but merely linked to them.
2) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that arguments require refutation to be rendered moot, while challenging them suffices.
3) Even an unchalleged argument may be fallacious and thus not constitute evidence for its conclusion.
4) That your alleged proofs remain unrefuted is merely a bald assertion of yours.
5) Please tune down your goading. It is annoying when threads I am discussing in are closed.

Strange. There is no mention of God in those articles about the beginning of the universe.

Strange, you're not refuting the main point, which leaves the necessity of "God" wide open.

Strange. You are committing an onus probandi fallacy.

Youre kind of prickly about all this?
You doing ok?

I was born prickly. That's not the point. The point is that you've just straight-up admitted that your side is a (leap of) faith claim.

Maybe he is just honest.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes. It's the only way they can possibly justify their atheism.

Nope.

^ Words in my mouth. I clearly stated they are making that claim. Even when they don't say it outright in so many words, it is clearly implied.

Nope.

But since you can't actually explain the difference, you'll just insist you did anyway, when you can't even cough up a direct verbatum quote of yours from the past.

You don't need me to explain it to you too. You've had it explained, you just refuse to accept it.

 

[Yttrium]

Yes. It's the only way they can possibly justify their atheism.

Nope.

You guys are just going in circles on this. You're just arguing semantics on the meaning of "atheism"

Moral Orel, you're not an atheist by Paulomycin's definition. Paulomycin, you really should accept the idea that other people have different definitions of the word, so you should make your personal definition clear at the start. Also, beware of using your definition to make a straw man against any non-religious people. Not that you do.

 

[Moral Orel]

Moral Orel, you're not an atheist by Paulomycin's definition.

No, I am. He thinks that because I say, "I do not believe there is a god" that I must also be saying "I believe there is no god". It isn't a matter of disputed definitions, it's a matter of what he thinks is implied by a lack of belief.

 

[Larniavc]

Your feelings?

Dogmatic assumption? <-- Whether yours, or someone else's?

Belief in the myth of Conflict Thesis?

Something else?

Or, is the conclusion part of a larger step-by-step process that you can explain in clear detail without being painfully vague and ambiguous?

I think there may be other universes out there. We are certainly causally disconnected from other parts of the universe so why not?

 

[Yttrium]

No, I am. He thinks that because I say, "I do not believe there is a god" that I must also be saying "I believe there is no god". It isn't a matter of disputed definitions, it's a matter of what he thinks is implied by a lack of belief.

Well, "I do not believe there is a god" is an ambiguous statement, and easily misinterpreted. It's commonly (if incorrectly) interpreted to mean "I believe there is no god". It might be better to say "I lack a belief in a god", or "I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a god".

 

[jayem]

Gee, I leave town for a few days and the thread is still alive.

As my avatar notes, I’m a naturalist. I would answer the OP by saying everything that exists is a function of matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature. Of course it requires faith. It can’t be proven with absolute metaphysical certainty. (Not yet anyway.) But it’s supported by induction. Historically, people have always concocted supernatural entities to explain what wasn’t understood. Things like storms, floods, diseases, earthquakes, the ebb and flow of tides, and the perceived motions of the sun, moon, and stars—just to name some—were all at one time thought to be the product of supernatural gods or spirits. But as our fund of knowledge has improved, we know these are all natural phenomena. In the entire history of knowledge, a supernatural explanation has never been valid for anything. So—by simple a posteriori reasoning—why should I believe there’s a supernatural cause for for all the things we still don’t know?

BTW: Yes, I’m fully aware of the limitations of inductive logic. But being a simple-minded person, I like simplistic arguments.

 

[Paulomycin]

Your argument appears to be the following :

P1. Amoranemix claims : “Reality does not care about Mark Quayle's aversions”
P2. Amoranemix is unwilling to honestly suspend his atheism for any length of time.
P3. Therefore, Amoranemix claims a secular reality without evidence.
C. Therefore, Amoranemix presupposes a secular reality.

Is that indeed your argument ?
It is invalid, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

It's simpler than that. You stated "reality" first. You can't ham-fistedly claim any "reality" that refutes a theistic worldview carte blanche without proving a wholly secular or atheistic reality to begin with.

It seems that the answer to the question is no : you cannot prove your claim.

I prefer to call it what it is.
Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.

There you go again. You have no evidence to support an atheist reality. And I think you know that, so you dodge, or make up strawman syllogisms.

So we have your claim that you have never been objectively refuted and your claim that ontological naturalism is objectively refuted. If the latter is true, then I don't believe in it and I suspect few skeptics do.

"I don't believe it," is a subjective claim. I know where the lines are drawn, so no worries. Do try to keep up.

[18] The people 'from my side' fail to to suggest that in any specified detail for various reasons, but I doubt the one you are claiming is a popular one. Personally, I don't believe matter behaves that way.

All I'm hearing from you people is the desperate need to justify an eternal universe, and repackage it in as many different ways possible (but still with the common element). It's like you can't even believe that Steady State was really falsified to begin with. The real irony is that this position is about as anti-science as it gets. But I proved God with it, so your knee-jerk intolerance kicks in and you throw science right under the bus. It's hilarious.

[19] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

Personal experience. IIRC, you appealed to your own personal experience at one point and insisted it was worthy of consideration. I'm okay with rejecting personal experience, but please no double-standards. I really hate it when atheists go there. And in my personal experience, they can't help "going there."

Anyway, since no one claimed matter to behave that way, for whatever reason, your rebuttal was a straw man fallacy.

Hold up. If no one claimed matter behaved that way, then I have no reason to pursue my alleged "strawman" to begin with. That's just as acceptable as a retraction. So, no worries.

But here's the original quote regardless:

Getting in somewhat late here. I believe matter/energy and the fundamental forces of nature are all that exist. I accept it by Ockham’s directive not to multiply entities unnecessarily. I see no need for a supernatural deity. If one believes that some kind of god always existed, why is it so implausible that matter/energy and the fundamental forces have always existed? I can’t rule out the possibility that there could be an as yet unidentified natural force that enables (or maybe acts as a substratum) for matter/energy and the other fundamental forces. But why should I believe that it’s a personal entity that has any awareness of, interest in, or purpose for the material universe, or plays any role in how it operates? To me, the idea of an immanent personal god (or gods) is a product of the human imagination. And is one of good Friar William of Ockham’s unnecessary entities.

Now you "noticed." Thank me.

[20] First, that is the original formulation of William of Ockham. You seem to only rely on it because it supports your position.

It didn't "evolve," if that's what you're implying. And Jayem was the one who originally brought it up; not me. If you're going to help out your fellow atheists, you should at least pay attention and read their posts.

However, it fails to be good predictor of the real world when applied literally.

I'm already aware of that. But I'm still willing to play if atheists insist on using it as a rule. As you can see, I'm good either way.

[21] No, it is not. It is a hypothesis.

Do you know the difference between a principle, a law, and a hypothesis? I'll give you a chance to correct yourself here. Cause 2/3 ain't bad.

[22] You are mistaken. What you have presented is not proof, but a bad argument, as I have explained. However, there might be confusion about the discussed argument. What argument are you claiming is proof ?

Suddenly, you lost track of the thread. I'm not going to hold your hand through the mess you created with your own formatting. We can pick this up later when the topic returns.

[23] These seem to be the premises you use to try prove conclusions (a.) and (b.). What is an indirekt contradiction and how is it supposed to demonstrate that infinite causal loops are never a rational proposal ? I don't know what eternal finite materialism is, so I won't bother you with a proof challenge for that.

*whoosh* Right over your head. Wow.

It's like you're not even reading. Really. What can I do?

I'll compare two example claims to illustrate what I meant :

“A small object may be orbiting the moon” is a vague claim of possibility.
“A small, man-made object is orbiting the moon” is a less vague claim of fact.

The second claim requires more support to make a point or be as likely true as the first.
You made unevidenced claims of fact that are more specific than jayem's claim of possibility of post 56 that you criticized in post 57.

Quote me.

[a] Dude. Don't be a grammar nazi. I was not trying to trick you. I agree that is a definition i.s.a. premise.

You were, and you refuse to admit it. All atheists are here in bad faith and play bait & switch manipulation games 24/7 as-if we just fell off the turnip truck, and they've been pulling that crap for the past 10 years or more. Atheists will try any trick in the book; resort to any tiny loophole to get them away from God. They are that desperate.

[b ] I think I quoted everything from post 60 regarding that argument.

I don't see it and I'm tired of plowing through your garbage formatting. I posted a variant to the traditional cosmological argument + a separate modus ponens, and I got a lot of reactions to it. You don't care, so you're trying to stall me out. But surprise! I really don't care that you missed it.

You are mistaken. Regardless of whether God is subordinate to some external standard of morality or not, his moral standard can epistemically be any moral standard.

If that is the case, then god would be subordinate to any moral standard. Therefore, god is not omnipotent.

Solution: Morality = God's nature. Not an externalized standard. "God is good" does not mean "God's behavior conforms to a higher moral standard," but rather "God Himself is literally the only moral standard there is."

[24] You are correct. Atheists have so far been unable to demonstrate the assumed religious baggage attached to God.

^ I found that a rather shocking admission. I can't imagine why any atheist would say this ever. Probably a typo.

So, even if you were able to prove the existence of an omnipotent being, it would only be a small step towards proving the existence of the Christian god.

[25] Stephen Hawking saying something allegedly irrational did not prevent you from using him as an authority.

I only use rational Hawking quotes. Everyone strikes out sometimes. Please don't confuse the person with the quality of the quote.

[26] You are mistaken. That is not an argument, but a claim.

"create itself" is a self-refuting and irrational statement. And as-such, it can never be used in an argument.

So is up to the proponents of that hypothesis to decide what 'creating itself' means.

No matter how hard one tries to equivocate, they can't paint themselves out of that absurd corner.

That does not follow. You are using the same fallacious kind of reasoning Mark Quayle denied using in post 61 : You don't understand how something could be, it would suit your faith that it could not be, thus it must be impossible.

Which fallacy? Name it.

Hint: You can't.

Again, in-order for anything to create itself, it must be its own creator, which means that it would have to exist before it was, which means it would have to be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. That violates the most fundamental law of reason—the law of noncontradiction. Therefore, the concept of self-creation is manifestly absurd, contradictory, and irrational. To hold to such a view is bad science and equally bad philosophy and theology, because both philosophy and science rest upon the ironclad laws of reason. Theology should too. Otherwise, I'd still be an atheist myself.

You are basically accusing the proponents of the no boundary proposal to commit a basic reasoning error, which is implausible.

Why, because your belief in the infallibility of a scientific papacy? Some of the sneakiest errors are at the most basic level. You know that. They're easily overlooked by people who assume they're too advanced to make basic mistakes. This has been proven over and over again throughout history.

[a] No, that is not the reason. I don't buy them because they look fallacious.

You didn't cite any particular fallacy. They all have names, you know. At least try to make your empty accusations stick.

[b ] 1) You have not presented your alleged proofs, but merely linked to them.

That counts as a presentation. I apologize that I didn't deliver it to you personally on bended knee; tucked in a silk pillow for m'lord's consideration.

2) You seem to be under the mistaken impression that arguments require refutation to be rendered moot, while challenging them suffices.

Who taught you that? Oh wait, you're making it up. BTW, it has to be an objective deductive challenge for you to challenge it. But my argument is a deductive argument. Not inductive. So inductive possibilities don't count. You don't get to re-write the rules anytime you feel like it.

3) Even an unchalleged argument may be fallacious and thus not constitute evidence for its conclusion.

True, but you still have to demonstrate the fallacy in-question. You can't magically declare, "That's fallacious, I win!"

4) That your alleged proofs remain unrefuted is merely a bald assertion of yours.

If it were, then atheists would be chasing me from forum to forum with it on the daily until I'd up and quit. I even created a thread literally asking, "Hey, were any of the classical proofs of God ever refuted?" There was a lot of complaining but no objective refutations were presented. At best, I got an author reference with a few book chapters, and I literally had the book on me, but the atheist didn't want to discuss it further.

5) Please tune down your goading. It is annoying when threads I am discussing in are closed.

Please specify the statement you're accusing me of. IIRC, mods and admins don't appreciate people filing frivolous lawsuits. What you're reacting to as "goading" might very well be a brute fact you're emotionally unwilling to deal with.

Strange. You are committing an onus probandi fallacy.

Wow, you actually named a specific fallacy for a change. But you didn't argue any further than the mere accusation alone, and what's worse is that you've submitted no objective corrections.

In any case, I haven't violated onus probandi because the main point was taking on burden of proof. The articles you're disparaging are a legit challenge to the "no boundary" proposal. But then with the atheist, "challenging the argument" is just as sufficient as a refutation, but only for you & not me. Double-standards ahoy!

Maybe he is just honest.

Really? Do you agree with him? Seriously?

Twelve years ago, it was a popular accusation for believers to troll with. That's one of the major reasons believers accused atheism itself of being a substitute religion. Which is why no atheist worth their salt would ever admit to non-belief as a "leap of faith." It's totally exposing your weakness. It's quite possibly the worst move to make, and a shameful double-standard to boot. Back when I was an atheist, I would never even consider such a thing, let alone admit to it in public. If you've ever read Kierkegaard, it's completely contradictory for someone who claims to value evidence and reason to value an "irrational leap" of any shape or form.

 

[Paulomycin]

You guys are just going in circles on this. You're just arguing semantics on the meaning of "atheism"

I honestly appreciate you saying this. Thank you. I was starting to fall for Orel's gaslighting.

Moral Orel, you're not an atheist by Paulomycin's definition. Paulomycin, you really should accept the idea that other people have different definitions of the word, so you should make your personal definition clear at the start. Also, beware of using your definition to make a straw man against any non-religious people. Not that you do.

That's why I started a new thread.

 

[Paulomycin]

I think there may be other universes out there. We are certainly causally disconnected from other parts of the universe so why not?

"there may be" doesn't sound like you're very convinced.

 

[Paulomycin]

Non sequitur.

It's literally the OP that I created! Answer the question. You don't believe the universe is all that exists?

Nope.

Oh, yes.

I'm thinking of a number. Tell me what you believe it is.

My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:

1. I don't know.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.

So tired of this garbage.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yeah, I'm very aware of this particular issue. I've been hoping he'd address it.

Don't say that I didn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's literally the OP that I created! Answer the question. You don't believe the universe is all that exists?

I don't.

Oh, yes.

Oh, no.

I'm thinking of a number. Tell me what you believe it is.

My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:

1. I don't know.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.

So tired of this garbage.

So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?

 

[Paulomycin]

I don't.

Do you believe your own claim of unbelief?

Oh, no.

Still words in my mouth. I clearly stated they are making that claim. Even when they don't say it outright in so many words, it is clearly implied.

So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?

My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:

1. I don't know.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.

The statement "I don't know" is not a statement of belief in either direction.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you believe your own claim of unbelief?

Yes.

Still words in my mouth. I clearly stated they are making that claim. Even when they don't say it outright in so many words, it is clearly implied.

It's impossible to make a claim without stating it.

So there is no number that you believe I am thinking of?

My answer is a two-part answer, do not attempt to parse or quotemine it:

1. I don't know.
2. "I don't know" ≠ the actual number you were allegedly thinking of.

The statement "I don't know" is not a statement of belief in either direction.

You don't know if there is a number that you believe I am thinking of? You don't know your own beliefs?