Paulomycin
Well-Known Member
- Feb 22, 2021
- 1,482
- 376
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Reformed
Creationism is presuppositional.
Natural theology does not begin with Creationism.
Get it right.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What makes your creation myth better than any other?
It is my position. If you cannot understand this I cannot help you.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.
Myths are a dime a dozen.
He doesn't care to understand.
Myths are a dime a dozen.
It is my position. If you cannot understand this I cannot help you.
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."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.
Where have I said I do not accept the universe had a beginning or it was caused? Really, show me the post?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.
So when he puts words in atheists mouths that is ok right? He does this every post.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.
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.
So when he puts words in atheists mouths that is ok right? He does this every post.
How have you determined these are the only categories of a cause?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.
You have not demonstrated this leads to an infinite regress or that a first cause cannot be natural occurring.#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.
I agree chance is not a reasonable explanation.#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.
The problem is how can you know you have eliminated other possible solutions? Refer to my answer above.Thus, deductively speaking, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
I make no claim and I don't have to bring forth any solutions. You have not demonstrated this is sound.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.
How have you determined these are the only categories of a cause?
You have not demonstrated this leads to an infinite regress or that a first cause cannot be natural occurring.
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?
Prove it.Nor can there be.
Prove it.
What's wrong with proving a negative?^ Asking me to prove a negative. How many times is this now?
Nor can there be.
I never assert anything without evidence. Ev-er.
I never assert anything without evidence. Ev-er.
What's wrong with proving a negative?
Fine? Okay, prove "nor can there be" any additional options presented. And don't weasel out of it!Fine.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?