Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Esquilax]

I did no such thing.

When you keep saying I've admitted that natural laws require a creator, when the entire time I've made no bones about how completely made up my creator scenario was, and that the point I was making was something else entirely, then yes, you are misrepresenting my position.

That’s correct.

I just wanted you to admit it before I called that on the huge argument from ignorance you just committed. How the hell would you know what is and isn't available in the future?

There you go being irrational again. Arguing that there is a manner in which “B” can be accounted for consistently by “Position A” but we just have not found it yet is a fallacious argument from ignorance.

Quite the opposite: the argument from ignorance goes "I don't know X, therefore X cannot be true." If I'd said that since Position A hasn't got an answer for B yet, it could never have an answer for B (which seems to be your position) then I would be guilty of an argument from ignorance. Saying that Position A hasn't yet accounted for B, but may do so in future, is specifically avoiding the argument from ignorance.

I swear, every single argument you make is like a complete inversion of reality or logic.

Couple that with the fact that Position B (a position you vehemently reject) can consistently account for “B” and you have now engaged in adhering to Position A solely upon blind faith.

And as I've mentioned like seven times now, and this was the point of my initial time travel argument that you've been fleeing from at top speed, making shit up to account for something doesn't say anything about its veracity. All you've done is clung to a story of magic that you think explains everything, all the while giving absolutely no mechanism and therefore explaining nothing, and you think that gives your position more credibility: until you can demonstrate that your position is correct, however much it accounts for anything means nothing, because there are dozens of fictional answers that could do the same thing.

Meanwhile, over here, I'm keeping an open mind and waiting for the evidence to come in. You know, the rational view? And yet my position, where I only believe things that are demonstrable, is somehow one that requires blind faith, while yours, where you go for the answer that you want to believe, regardless of evidence, doesn't?

No because your attempt at accounting for natural laws was irrational. It committed a category (material/immaterial) error and invoked logical contradictions by asserting that natural laws existed prior to their creation. Christian theism rationally accounts for natural laws.

Except that I answered that by appealing to the future again, and the only response you had was to categorically deny that the technology I require could exist in the future, which is something you can't possibly know. So, aside from a by fiat assertion, you've offered no counter that actually shows the irrationality of my position.

Equally, I could just say that your god is irrational because magic isn't real, but unlike you I recognize that simply asserting bullshit that I want to be true isn't much of an argument. One needs evidence.

Nope, because it is illogical.

What a compelling and well thought out response.

They are.

Do you have any concept of how little credibility your baseless assertions have, here?

I’ve already given you enough to work with; get to it.

No thanks, unlike you I'd like to work with a full complement of facts. I'll happily run through the problems with the vanilla version of the argument, but I'd rather not be accused of strawmanning whatever version you're using; why not just present your little doodad, so I can tailor my response to that specifically?

Rationality is not determined by what people think; do you have anything better?

Yes: all the evidence.

Where did I demand evidence for your claim? I simply pointed out that it was illogical-and that is all that I needed to do.

You made an assertion. That means absolutely nothing. I could do the same, as I've already pointed out; I don't, because "nuh uh!" isn't actually an argument that adults should use. And again, in doing so you still missed the actual point I was making...

Here is your logic using your same analogy…

A: “Where do hotdogs come from?”
B: “People make them.”
A: “How do people make them?”
B: “I do not know; I have never been to the plant.”
A: “Well, why don't we go and find out?”
B: "No, they must have been made by magic."
A: "What?
B: "Magic."
A: "But magic doesn't exist, as far as we know."
B: "Hotdogs are made by magic. Anything else is illogical. Without magic, you can't make any meat. "
A: "You just said you hadn't been to the factory."
B: "Magic accounts for how hotdogs are made. You can't account for that, and therefore I'm right."
A: “Huh?”

Fixed that for ya.

No, I am perfectly content with the correct answer. God created the laws of nature.

Just asserting your answer is correct doesn't make it so. Can you stop with this petty bullshit?

A space wizard? I think you are getting your conversations confused. I am somewhat amused that you cannot see the flaw in your own position. You have no idea where the laws of nature came from or what is governing them but you are sure that they have never been different in the past nor will they ever be different in the future. How absurd is that? At least I have a reason for believing they can change in very isolated instances but will generally remain regular; you have no reason for believing they even exist in the first place let alone that they have and will remain regular.

And your made up reason isn't correct just because you decided to say it is. Besides, there's another argument from ignorance here, which is that you've no way of knowing whether the laws of nature will stay the same in every circumstance. You're just asserting it.

I love how your every position is based on ignorance.

So you cannot do it rationally? That’s all I needed to know.

So you can't refute me without an argument from ignorance? That's all I needed to know.

What ensures that natural laws remain that way throughout time? What is Floontrium made of? You said it was material.

Floontium is made of Floontium, Stat. Try to keep up. And Floontium ensures the natural laws remain stable over time, because so far, there has always been Floontium.

You’re the one invoking arguments from ignorance. “I do not know where laws of nature come from but I know that there is a natural explanation that we just have not found yet for them.” You’re caught in a dilemma, you either have to postulate an explanation for the laws of nature that is really only Yahweh by a different name, or you have to admit that the existence of natural immaterial laws is utterly incompatible with your view of reality and relinquish appealing to them (thus rendering all science impossible).

You don't actually know what an argument from ignorance is, do you Stat? You're engaging in an argument from ignorance, about arguments from ignorance.