(December 16, 2015 at 1:39 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I like that she brought the list of arguments, as if they were new, and as if our unwillingness to go through and re-refute old arguments would mean we possess a lack of capacity to do so. Further, it is the machine-gun tactic, like the "Gish Gallop"; you fire a giant list of things at your opponent, too much to readily digest in a forum of this sort, then declare victory when the opponent shows an unwillingness to try to swallow your drivel in a single bite, writing the necessary dissertation to show why it is bunk (or else plagiarize arguments against them that have long since been made).
Most of the errors in the arguments were, however, pointed out as question-begging, defining your God into existence by assuming certain characteristics must be true without basis to do so.
Others are mere "wowie" arguments, such as the complexity and natural numbers arguments.
"A circle's diameter is always related to its diameter by a fixed number... therefore God."
"The universe formed as it did because these forces interact at a given strength... therefore God."
"Gosh, this or that thingey is just too complex for me to grasp how it works/exists...therefore God."
You might as well say, "Blue and yellow together look like purple to our eyes... therefore God." (How else would we have tulips, I guess?)
I mean, for fuck's sake, the first argument literally boils down to "Some things exist whether we think of them or not, therefore God thinks of them to make them exist." Fuckin' really!?!
As if a rock cares if my eyes/brain ever notice what frequencies of light are absorbed or reflected from its surface, to make it "grey" colored. (And as if it's okay to presuppose that a thing must be thought of by a living intellect before it can be considered true even in the abstract, as we imagine this particular rock that no one has encountered on the surface of the moon, say, but can say for the sake of argument that it is both unnoticed and yet would be truly grey if so. And as if it's okay to suppose that this rock can only be grey in the mind of God, in order for it truly to be grey. It just spins greyly on through the universe, not noticing its lack of notice, being just a damned rock that is emitting frequencies that would be seen as truly grey if ever it was looked upon by human eyes.)
Having seen such a terrible argument, I was loath to do more than scan the rest of it, and I saw nothing that looked much better... I couldn't hit Page Down without seeing a presupposition or false conclusion. I certainly hope that's not the best your apologists can do, lady.
I just stopped randomly to try one of them... and I get the "argument from colors and flavors" and "the argument from love", both things that are reasonably well-understood from a biological point of view, and don't even constitute arguments for God at all, except in the laziest, most intellectually-devoid sense of the term: "I don't know how this works biologically, and I guess no one else does either...so, must be God".
And you have the audacity to insult us over our intelligence? That drivel wouldn't pass a freshman philosophy course. Even I can see ways to clean up some of those arguments, and they still would fail the "provides actual evidence of God" test.
Go home, Christian Apologetics, you're drunk.
What a fantastic set of delusions! You're a reminder, with every post, that people with wild imaginations and poor comprehension can call atheism a home. Or a cardboard box, as it is.
Atheists with their eyes closed claim they see no evidence. Moment you provide it, suddenly there's too much evidence! You're machine-gunning them! Talk about dishonest goalpost shifting.
When faced with evidence, two dodos (Cato and Stimbo) tried to poison the well, not realizing it was a fallacy. So they failed to respond to the evidence.
Now it's time for your missteps.
Quote:Most of the errors in the arguments were, however, pointed out as question-begging, defining your God into existence by assuming certain characteristics must be true without basis to do so.Your fallacy: Argument by assertion
Quote:Others are mere "wowie" arguments, such as the complexity and natural numbers arguments.What the hell are "wowie" arguments and what's supposed to be wrong with them? Is this supposed to be a meaningful objection? Well it isn't.
Quote:I mean, for fuck's sake, the first argument literally boils down to "Some things exist whether we think of them or not, therefore God thinks of them to make them exist." Fuckin' really!?!False. You've failed to comprehend the argument. The argument isn't just talking about some things, it talks about propositions specifically, and the widely held idea (held by many atheist philosophers) is that propositions depend on minds.
You are an idiot. Really.
I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest. How can I take an idiot like you seriously after you don't even know how to read?
