Do facts actualy point to a Creator?

[Loudmouth]

Many atheists seem to be under the misguided impression that confident declarations of inability to see or perceive constitutes a genuine rebuttal of a premise.

When you refuse to present any evidence, you can't blame us for not seeing it.

You see, a rebuttal of premise demands that it be proven false or defective.

The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Tell that to your atheist physicists who propose those ideas as feasible.

How are they assuming their conclusion like you are?

 

[Loudmouth]

This discussion is about what can be considered feasible-is it not?

What can be considered feasible are premises based on evidence, not what-if's.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Many atheists seem to be under the misguided impression that confident declarations of inability to see or perceive constitutes a genuine rebuttal of a premise. Sorry to rain on your parade or ruin your party but all that proves is either your genuine inability to see or feigned inability to see and nothing else.

If there is no way to see or perceive X, then how can you know that it's there?

You see, a rebuttal of premise demands that it be proven false or defective.

Not really.
That would be a shifting the burden of proof.

Off course, that doesn't mean that premises can't be shown to be false. But it's not really required.

The burden of proof is all about supporting your own claims.
Pointing out that the this supporting evidence is either missing or insufficient, is in reality already enough to serve as a rebutal.

Interestingly, I have yet to encounter am atheist who has attempted it.

Attempted what exactly?
Sorry, but I'm confused about which premises exactly you are talking about.
Perhaps you can be more specific?

Instead, they immediately claim intellectual blindness or else they go into the inconsistency of policy mode in the erroneous belief that such fervent declarations constitute a rebuttals. The sad part about it is that many theists who appear to lack knowledge of what a genuine rebuttal entails feel intimidated by those irrational antics and humbly submit to the knee-jerk-reaction charade.

The way you defined "rebuttal of premises" here, it smells a bit too hard like a shift in the burden of proof.

So, I'll ask you kindly to be more specific about which premises you are talking about, exactly, before agreeing or disagreeing with your statements.

Looking forward to it..

 

[DogmaHunter]

This discussion is about what can be considered feasible-is it not?
The facts are that these ideas are considered feasible by your atheist scientists and are based on what your atheist scientists regularly discuss publicly on the internet and wrote about.

I don't think a single one of them ever published a paper talking about dimensions housing god-like entities that care about what we do with our private parts, especially while naked.

Your dismissal of the concepts as irrelevant or ridiculous is a criticism of them-not me.

Nope, it's definatly a dismissal of the concepts you brought forward.

If indeed you are totally ignorant of such basic concepts then perhaps you should not be attempting to represent science at all.

They are not "basic concepts". They are "what if's", of which there are an infinite number with equal merrit.

 

[Radrook]

That doesn't follow; physicists hypothesise and speculate about other universes based on the mathematical models that describe our universe; they are extrapolations of, solutions to, or predictions of, the maths underlying those models. This allows them to deduce what the properties and attributes of these universes might be. As far as I'm aware, the heavenly realm has no physical or mathematical basis of this kind.

The reason a dimension that might be referred to as heaven doesn't follow is because you accept any dimension that might be proposed until that dimension is called heaven. You offer absolutely no acceptable logical reason why such a dimension cannot exist or why it should unceremoniously be rejected. As for mathematical models, WRONG. You are limiting the possible to what mathematicians are able to imagine base on our laws of nature and how they can vary. That assumes that mathematicians are familiar with the entirety of reality and they are not.

He was challenging not the idea of causality per-se, but glib acceptance of the certainty of causality, by exploring what we can learn from our limited experience & perception of events; i.e. he saw that causality is an abstract (mental) concept that codifies our experience of 'constant conjunction' with 'necessary connection'. That it is entirely experiential leads to the 'Problem of Induction'.
Seems to me universal retrocausality is just a question of perspective; any universe can be seen as its own causal inverse. For example, one could argue our own universe is such a place; whichever way cause and effect operates, it appears the same to us because our experience has a dependency on the arrow of time, which reflects cause and effect. To attempt to separate them appears to make a circular argument. Local retrocausality is controversial; let's not go there

You are talking to a person who studied exactly what Hume taught and aced the course so your assumption of ignorance is ill based and presumptuous. It also shows that YOU are either twisting his argument to suit your preconception or else are ignorant of what he was referring to and it is EXACTLY how I describe it. All the other details you added which are basic are really irrelevant to the issue. Oliver North was infamous for using such rhetorical ploys.

BTW
Anything and everything that might be offered as a possibility of a creator becomes or is transformed into a controversy or deemed controversial to an atheist. So that controversial argument means very little.

 

[Radrook]

I don't think a single one of them ever published a paper talking about dimensions housing god-like entities that care about what we do with our private parts, especially while naked.

The truth behind your vehement objections finally comes out! It isn't really the dimensions you object to-it is the being or deity that you imagine I am suggesting might dwell in such hypothetical dimension that irks you.

[Nope, it's definatly a dismissal of the concepts you brought forward.

Wrong! Unceremonious dismissals don't constitute a rebuttal. That is an extremely basic argumentation principle with which anyone who is attempting to engage in an argument should be aware. Otherwise he shouldn't be attempting to argue in the first place..

BTW
Below you claim that they aren't concepts! Above you admit that they are.

They are not "basic concepts". They are "what if's", of which there are an infinite number with equal merrit.

Hypotheticals are now not concepts? Now you are writing your own dictionary.

 

[Radrook]

The only reason offered so far for the rejection of the proposed dimension is that the being who might reside there might be interested on what the atheist is doing while the atheist happens to be but naked. With all due respect but I am not proposing that the being in such a dimension is interested in what atheists are doing while they are but naked. I am merely proposing that a being who fits the description of creator might reside there. Hope that clears it up and assuages atheist fears.

 

[Radrook]

If there is no way to see or perceive X, then how can you know that it's there?

Umm, the "I just can't see it!" response isn't a rebuttal. It is a declaration of an inability to comprehend or to see or a refusal; to do so.

Off course, that doesn't mean that premises can't be shown to be false. But it's not really required.

Now you are writing your own book on the rules of argumentation. A rebuttal via counter-evidence or logic isn't required in your system? Really? Make a statement like that to a professor of logic and see what he tells you. Better yet, go to a court of law and present your case and tell that to the judge.

The burden of proof is all about supporting your own claims.
Pointing out that the this supporting evidence is either missing or insufficient, is in reality already enough to serve as a rebutal.

Unfortunately you are describing exactly what atheists do when they propose abiogenesis, they offer no support for the justification. They also go into the dead-brain zone and refuse to apply logic which they readily apply to all other areas of science. under the guise of being brain dead they then smugly proceed to dismiss everything that comes their way that doesn't jibe with their atheist preconceptions. That is called invincible ignorance and it makes any and all discussions futile. That's why I will bow out of this one in a short while instead of wasting my time.

Attempted what exactly?
Sorry, but I'm confused about which premises exactly you are talking about.
Perhaps you can be more specific?

Constantly repeating myself becomes tiresome. Especially when I have been perfectly clear.
Don't understand plain English? Take an English reading comprehension remedial class.

The way you defined "rebuttal of premises" here, it smells a bit too hard like a shift in the burden of proof.

So, I'll ask you kindly to be more specific about which premises you are talking about, exactly, before agreeing or disagreeing with your statements.

Looking forward to it..

That is an unwarranted suspicion stated without providing any logical reason for it. I am not under any rhetorical obligation to respond to unwarranted suspicions.

 

[Radrook]

What can be considered feasible are premises based on evidence, not what-if's.

You have no evidence do you have for abiogenesis yet consider it much more than feasible. So you are being glaringly inconsistent. Inconsistency of that kind is usually associated irrational beliefs.

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason a dimension that might be referred to as heaven doesn't follow is because you accept any dimension that might be proposed until that dimension is called heaven. You offer absolutely no acceptable logical reason why such a dimension cannot exist or why it should unceremoniously be rejected.

We have offered a logical reason. There is no evidence that any such dimension exists. The burden of proof lies with the person claiming that there is a dimension where a deity resides.

As for mathematical models, WRONG. You are limiting the possible to what mathematicians are able to imagine base on our laws of nature and how they can vary. That assumes that mathematicians are familiar with the entirety of reality and they are not.

What one can imagine is not evidence nor a logical premise.

BTW
Anything and everything that might be offered as a possibility of a creator becomes or is transformed into a controversy or deemed controversial to an atheist. So that controversial argument means very little.

The non-controversial position is that possibilities are not evidence, which is the position that atheists take. Just because you can imagine it doesn't make it true. Pretty simple concept, really.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have no evidence do you have for abiogenesis yet consider it much more than feasible.

I consider abiogenesis research more feasible because you can easily construct hypotheses and experiments. As to the origin of life, I don't know where life came from. I haven't reached any conclusion.

Before you tell me what my position is, perhaps you should actually learn what my position is.

 

[Radrook]

I consider abiogenesis research more feasible because you can easily construct hypotheses and experiments. As to the origin of life, I don't know where life came from. I haven't reached any conclusion.

Before you tell me what my position is, perhaps you should actually learn what my position is.

Why would you consider something that doesn't occur in nature and can't be forced to happen in a lab more feasible than something based on what is repeatedly observable in nature and which justifies the inductive leap that life comes only from previous life? I mean-you are entitled to your belief. However, I just can't understand your logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

Umm, the "I just can't see it!" response isn't a rebuttal.

Umm, the "I refuse to present evidence" position is not reasonable or logical.

A rebuttal via counter-evidence or logic isn't required in your system?

In the agreed upon rules of logic, one does not have to rebut an argument that has no evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the one who is skeptical of the claim.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Or as the Hitch put it:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

Make a statement like that to a professor of logic and see what he tells you.

Who don't you go to a professor of logic and ask him if your ability to imagine a deity in a separate dimension is a valid premise in an argument. Also ask him if it is other peoples' fault for not being able to see evidence that you never present. I suspect the professor will laugh you out of the building.

Better yet, go to a court of law and present your case and tell that to the judge.

The judge already throws out cases where the prosecution is unable to present evidence that the defendant is guilty. The judge also does not allow the prosecution to tell the jury that there is tons of evidence proving the defendant is guilty, but that he won't present that evidence because the jury will just ignore it anyway. The judge also does not require the defense to disprove the defendant's guilt when there is no evidence demonstrating that the defendant is guilty. On top of that, the judge does not allow the prosecution's ability to imagine the defendant killing someone as evidence of guilt.

I think you need a bit of self awareness to see just how transparent your argument is.

Unfortunately you are describing exactly what atheists do when they propose abiogenesis, they offer no support for the justification. They also go into the dead-brain zone and refuse to apply logic which they readily apply to all other areas of science. under the guise of being brain dead they then smugly proceed to dismiss everything that comes their way that doesn't jibe with their atheist preconceptions. That is called invincible ignorance and it makes any and all discussions futile. That's why I will bow out of this one in a short while instead of wasting my time.

This is known as a tu quoque fallacy. You have now admitted that you have no evidence.

I am not under any rhetorical obligation to respond to unwarranted suspicions.

Funny how you require other people to prove their case, but expect your argument to be accepted as true without any evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would you consider something that doesn't occur in nature . . .

Where is your evidence that it doesn't occur in nature?

 

[Radrook]

Where is your evidence that it doesn't occur in nature?

You are the one claiming that it does without evidence to prove it. My claim is that life comes only from previous life and I have plenty of evidence to back that up-evidence which you totally and irrationally choose to ignore because the conclusion that you would be forced to reach might prove unpleasant.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one claiming that it does without evidence to prove it.

No, I'm not. Read my posts, for crying out loud.

"As to the origin of life, I don't know where life came from. I haven't reached any conclusion."--Me, post 432

Now, where is your evidence that abiogenesis does not occur in nature?

My claim is that life comes only from previous life . . .

Where did the first life come from?

 

[bhsmte]

You are the one claiming that it does without evidence to prove it. My claim is that life comes only from previous life and I have plenty of evidence to back that up-evidence which you totally and irrationally choose to ignore because the conclusion that you would be forced to reach might prove unpleasant.

Not what he said.

 

[Radrook]

Umm, the "I refuse to present evidence" position is not reasonable or logical.

That isn't what I am doing.

In the agreed upon rules of logic, one does not have to rebut an argument that has no evidence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, not the one who is skeptical of the claim.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Or as the Hitch put it:

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

Exactly why I dismiss your abiogenesois claim without providing evidence because it is asserted without evidence.

Who don't you go to a professor of logic and ask him if your ability to imagine a deity in a separate dimension is a valid premise in an argument. Also ask him if it is other peoples' fault for not being able to see evidence that you never present. I suspect the professor will laugh you out of the building.

An atheist professor? No thanks.

The judge already throws out cases where the prosecution is unable to present evidence that the defendant is guilty. The judge also does not allow the prosecution to tell the jury that there is tons of evidence proving the defendant is guilty, but that he won't present that evidence because the jury will just ignore it anyway. The judge also does not require the defense to disprove the defendant's guilt when there is no evidence demonstrating that the defendant is guilty. On top of that, the judge does not allow the prosecution's ability to imagine the defendant killing someone as evidence of guilt.

I think you need a bit of self awareness to see just how transparent your argument is.

You are describing exactly what atheists do with the abiogenesis claim.

BTW
your example doesn't apply to my modus operandi. What does apply is a Kangaroo Court in which it has already been determined that the accused will be provided with a fair trial before they hang him.

This is known as a tu quoque fallacy. You have now admitted that you have no evidence.

That would apply if I had not already presented evidence numerous times only to be told it isn't evidence and then asked to present it again. The criticism of inconsistency of policy is deserved and it isn't a fallacy in this case.

Funny how you require other people to prove their case, but expect your argument to be accepted as true without any evidence.

Funny how you keep using the "I just cain't see it!" excuse over and over again! That is getting rather old. Why not try something new?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The reason a dimension that might be referred to as heaven doesn't follow is because you accept any dimension that might be proposed until that dimension is called heaven.

On the contrary, if you can identify a universe that you feel would be a suitable heaven, based on the physics or maths underlying some acknowledged physical model, I have no objection at all. Your best option is probably to look at String Theory, which gives you a potential 10^500 (ten to the power 500) possible universes to select from. My doubt is that you have any idea of the physical parameters that would describe heaven, but if you have, by all means post them.

Terminology note: In physics, a 'dimension' is a coordinate axis of a particular space, not a comic book or Twilight Zone alternate universe or reality where alien beings might live.

You offer absolutely no acceptable logical reason why such a dimension cannot exist or why it should unceremoniously be rejected.

I haven't rejected anything - I just said that your unsupported assertion, "That heavenly realm should not be too hard for physicists to imagine" doesn't follow.

As for mathematical models, WRONG. You are limiting the possible to what mathematicians are able to imagine base on our laws of nature and how they can vary. That assumes that mathematicians are familiar with the entirety of reality and they are not.

I'm not limiting the possible at all - I'm saying that a hypothetical universe won't be taken seriously by physicists unless it has some coherent mathematical basis, and such bases are derived from what we've learnt of our own universe.

You are talking to a person who studied exactly what Hume taught and aced the course so your assumption of ignorance is ill based and presumptuous. It also shows that YOU are either twisting his argument to suit your preconception or else are ignorant of what he was referring to and it is EXACTLY how I describe it. All the other details you added which are basic are really irrelevant to the issue. Oliver North was infamous for using such rhetorical ploys.

Talking of rhetorical ploys, it would be more helpful if you were to explain where my understanding of Hume is mistaken; what did I say that was incorrect? how have I twisted his argument?

Anything and everything that might be offered as a possibility of a creator becomes or is transformed into a controversy or deemed controversial to an atheist. So that controversial argument means very little.

Hitchen's Razor applies, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Nevertheless, you'll find many atheists will be prepared to engage, given a reasonable or plausible argument.