Question for atheists. . .

[Bradskii]

Not really. There are real debates and rejections of these models that either you're either not aware of, or trying to sweep under the rug. I'll be charitable and assume you're not aware of them.

Just in passing, cut out the derogatory remarks as per the above. Generally couched in a superior tone. I'm an easy going guy but they're beginning to grate just a touch.

I said quite plainly that there are many varities of proposals for what type of universe we live in and how they were formed. Now read this bit again (I say again because I already said it above). The proposal for any one of these universes could be correct. And one more time: They could be correct.

Meaning that they obviously could be wrong. And it's plainly obvious from even a cursory investigation of the proposals that there are pros and cons for each one. For every proposal you'll find at least one guy who knows what he's talking about giving his reasons for why the other guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Each has his or her favourite. It was ever thus.

But for you, without the required knowledge, to hand wave away all varieties and all proposals simply because you think they don't fit within your theologically based creation event? It's a bit rich Paul.

So how about a smidgen of humility and accept that someone else with monstrously more education in the relevant fields might be right and you might be wrong. From a scientific viewpoint.

 

[Paulomycin]

Just in passing, cut out the derogatory remarks as per the above. Generally couched in a superior tone. I'm an easy going guy but they're beginning to grate just a touch.

I'm really not trying to be offensive (you should see me when I'm putting an effort into it), but I'm not here to massage your ego either. What other options are there for me beyond Hanlon's razor? It's an honest question.

I said quite plainly that there are many varities of proposals for what type of universe we live in and how they were formed. Now read this bit again (I say again because I already said it above). The proposal for any one of these universes could be correct. And one more time: They could be correct.

Meaning that they obviously could be wrong. And it's plainly obvious from even a cursory investigation of the proposals that there are pros and cons for each one. For every proposal you'll find at least one guy who knows what he's talking about giving his reasons for why the other guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Each has his or her favourite. It was ever thus.

If they could be wrong, then why imply they're worth as much as anything that is otherwise logically absolute?

But for you, without the required knowledge, to hand wave away all varieties and all proposals simply because you think they don't fit within your theologically based creation event? It's a bit rich Paul.

All scientific claims must necessarily be rationally sound. So far, you're vaguely proposing a lot of spinning plates in the air, but nothing definite. All you're asserting is, "I'd rather gamble on these guys, instead of a sure thing, because any one of them 'could be' right." But like you said, they could all be just as wrong. I actually follow the debates. Most of these guys are just playing the "publish or perish" game, and aren't even completely serious about what they're proposing.

So how about a smidgen of humility and accept that someone else with monstrously more education in the relevant fields might be right and you might be wrong. From a scientific viewpoint.

Because science is mostly inductive, or only ever comes to inductive conclusions. Which directly implies the Problem of Induction. Nothing in science is ever (ev-er) absolute. No scientist will ever have absolute knowledge of anything in their field. Any honest scientist will tell you that.

But logic is deductive, therefore absolute. <-- Recognize the category change. Admit the category change. It is not about a humility lecture. It is certainly not about one's level of education compared to mine. It's about your refusal to acknowledge the track I'm running on here.

 

[Lion IRC]

Just in passing, cut out the derogatory remarks as per the above. Generally couched in a superior tone. I'm an easy going guy...

I'm really not trying to be offensive (you should see me when I'm putting an effort into it),

@Bradskii
I think apologetics is about me saying sorry I'm a Christian,.
My bro Paul thinks apologetics is about making you sorry he's a Christian.
...just kidding. LOL (WLC humour)

I know you from other fora, and that you are a cool guy.
Lemme know if you want me to rough him up a bit.
...just kidding

 

[HitchSlap]

My argument itself has nothing to do with theism.

It has everything to do with theism. The only reason you're clinging to this tired syllogism, is because you've tied your horse to it. You need father/son/holy ghost to be real, as it's the only way it makes sense in your head.

 

[Paulomycin]

It has everything to do with theism.

You obviously skipped the part where I clearly stated, "You can still be theistic and [still] believe in absurdities like infinite regress."

The only reason you're clinging to this tired syllogism, is because you've tied your horse to it. You need father/son/holy ghost to be real, as it's the only way it makes sense in your head.

Motive fallacy much?

 

[Bradskii]

@Bradskii
I think apologetics is about me saying sorry I'm a Christian,.
My bro Paul thinks apologetics is about making you sorry he's a Christian.
...just kidding. LOL (WLC humour)

I know you from other fora, and that you are a cool guy.
Lemme know if you want me to rough him up a bit.
...just kidding

No worries, Lion.

Apropos nothing at all, my grandson was making a Lego locomotive this morning and he said it'd be cool to see a slow motion train wreck. So I Googled that and it gave me a link to this thread...

Thanks. Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Try try the veal - it's delicious.