Tooth Fairy Bullshit

[Cyberman]

Well, let's try your alternative:

"Why is there something rather than nothing?" God did it.
"Why does the world have a rational order?" God did it.
"Why do causes produce regular effects?" God does it.

Are those answers more reasonable?

Except those do not fairly represent the answers....

Yet saying "There just is" to those same questions does?

[Angrboda]

This is bullshit.  Not knowing doesn't preclude one from ruling out specific answers.  And in the case of naturalists answering the question, it's often implied that what they don't know is a plausible naturalistic explanation.  Supernatural explanations are unbounded.  Unless you've got something better than magic as an explanation, you've got nothing.  The number of potential magical beings that could be responsible is infinite, and you have no way of narrowing that pool to one.

Wrong.

On what basis can you rule anything out if you don't know?

Say you haven't learn the concept of math, on what basis can you say 2+2= 4 is right or wrong if you don't know?

Nice hypothetical. No. Wrong. You're equating not knowing the specific answer with a position of total ignorance. Saying "I don't know" isn't asserting complete ignorance. If there's a jar filled with gumballs, and someone asks me how many gumballs are in the jar, I can rightly say, "I don't know," without implying that I don't know the answer isn't 0 or 1. You're simply wrong. Not knowing doesn't imply total ignorance and a concomitant agnosticism towards all solutions.

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*

You kind of make my point, if none of the above exist, then you are dealing with the supernatural by definition.

Absolutely not.

The laws of nature, and the all the other stuff mentioned, are the attributes of this universe. These things did not exist, at least in the way they exist in our current universe, until this universe existed.

Still no supernatural entity necessary.

I'll quote the definition of supernatural again.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...pernatural

supernatural

1(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature:

If "the laws of nature" did not exist, then whatever state existed, existed apart from nature, making it supernatural by definition... got it?

---

Nice hypothetical.  No.  Wrong.  You're equating not knowing the specific answer with a position of total ignorance.  Saying "I don't know" isn't asserting complete ignorance.  If there's a jar filled with gumballs, and someone asks me how many gumballs are in the jar, I can rightly say, "I don't know," without implying that I don't know the answer isn't 0 or 1.  You're simply wrong.  Not knowing doesn't imply total ignorance and a concomitant agnosticism towards all solutions.

Except you are in total ignorance about the state the universe was in before it began...

In your scenario,  a jar filled with gumballs existing would be factual, but if you couldn't see the jar then you COULDN'T say what the number is or isn't.

Please tell me one fact about how the universe started, as far as I know no one was here to observe what took place.

[Asmodee]

"I don't know" IS an answer.  Theists often seem to have the belief that admitting you don't know something is some kind of weakness.  On the contrary, the weakness is pretending that you know something you don't.  It's a sign of a weak mind.

Except you guys never lead with "I don't know".

Calling something a fairy tale implies you DO know...

Not knowing means you can't say one way or the other.

First of an, I am an individual, not all atheists everywhere.  I am not "you guys".  If you think you know something about an entire group of people, but the thing which you think you know is not a part of the definition for the word or term which defines that group, then you believe an ignorant thing which is wrong.  Realizing when you've done this allows you to shed that ignorance and avoid the same mistake in the future.

Second of all, what I was responding to had nothing whatsoever to do with calling religion a fairy tale and did, in fact, lead with "I don't know".  It was direct answers to questions, each answer being "I don't know".  I don't know how much more "leading with it" you can do than that.

Finally, that I don't know the cause for something IN NO WAY says that I cannot know what was NOT the cause.  Do you claim to not know the universe was not caused by sentient marshmallows?  Do you feel the need to evaluate this ludicrous claim?  Are you not thinking seriously about it, knowing full well you will never know for sure that sentient marshmallows didn't create the universe?  No.  You dismiss it immediately.  Did you do that because you DO know what caused the universe?  No.  You may think you know, but you have no proof and therefore it is a belief, not knowledge.  So YOU "don't know" what caused the universe, but you are reasonable in your assumption that you can rule out sentient marshmallows.  And if you did not immediately rule out sentient marshmallows then you're just stupid.  Why would something utterly stupid that I just made up be deserving of serious consideration instead of simple cursory dismissal?  It would not.  There are a million things you "know" didn't cause the universe, and not one of those things is something you know because you have any real knowledge of what did cause the universe.  You CAN both not know what IS the cause AND know what is not the cause.

As a more down to Earth example, if you see bird crap on the sidewalk, you don't know the exact animal responsible for it, but you do know it wasn't a wolf.  You do know it wasn't a zebra.  You do know it wasn't aliens.  You don't know which animal did it, but you can point to many, many animals and say, "It was not that one".  You can imagine many more animals, monsters, trolls, fairies, deities, aliens, whatever you like and say, "That thing didn't do it".  If you answer your door to find a flaming bag of crap on your porch, you don't know who did do it, but you do know your long deceased ancestors did not do it.  You do know your brother who just got deployed to Iraq with the Air Force did not do it.  You do know your newborn child did not do it.  "Don't know who did" and "Do know who did not" ARE NOT mutually exclusive.  You CAN know one and not the other.  It only becomes mutually exclusive at the point you claim POSITIVE KNOWLEDGE.  If you DO KNOW who DID do it, it then becomes impossible to NOT KNOW who DID NOT do it.  You know that your neighbor DID do it, therefore you MUST KNOW that everyone else, real or imagined, DID NOT do it.

Of course, you may be wrong either way.  But in this case there has never been any evidence at any time whatsoever to even remotely suggest that magic is real.  That magic is not real is therefore a reasonable assumption.  Since the claims involving God are magical claims, when one reasonably assumes magic is not real, one can reasonably assume that God is not real.  Contrary to what you would like to believe, this is a very reasonable assumption.  I'm not going out on a limb here to make a wild, unfounded claim.  There is no reason to believe in magic and, therefore, no reason to accept magical claims.  So it is reasonable to dismiss magic as the cause of the universe, even if you obfuscate the fact that you are talking about magic by using the word "god" as a proper noun and pretending it has nothing whatsoever to do with magic.

[Faith No More]

Same difference. No answer at all.

What exactly about admitting that you don't and probably can't know something do you abhor? It's like you just turn your nose up at intellectual integrity.

Are you under the delusion that my inability to answer those gives more credence to your laughable claims?

---

Wrong.

On what basis can you rule anything out if you don't know?

Say you haven't learn the concept of math, on what basis can you say 2+2= 4 is right or wrong if you don't know?

I don't know why people voted for Trump, but I know the answer isn't that he shits golden watermelons.

[Angrboda]

Nice hypothetical.  No.  Wrong.  You're equating not knowing the specific answer with a position of total ignorance.  Saying "I don't know" isn't asserting complete ignorance.  If there's a jar filled with gumballs, and someone asks me how many gumballs are in the jar, I can rightly say, "I don't know," without implying that I don't know the answer isn't 0 or 1.  You're simply wrong.  Not knowing doesn't imply total ignorance and a concomitant agnosticism towards all solutions.

Except you are in total ignorance about the state the universe was in before it began...

In your scenario,  a jar filled with gumballs existing would be factual, but if you couldn't see the jar then you COULDN'T say what the number is or isn't.

Please tell me one fact about how the universe started, as far as I know no one was here to observe what took place.

You're assuming the universe started. And this wasn't the only question asked. But this is all besides the point. We start with putting the burden of proof for proposed God explanations firmly where it belongs. When the answer "I don't know," arises, it's usually as a tu quoque by the theist claiming that if we find his God claims implausible, that we are in a worse position for not having an answer. That's why we start with claiming that your answers are fairy tales, because when you present them, the onus is on you to make them plausible. Don't pretend your questions arise in a vacuum. They do not. You blame us for concentrating on the unbelievability of your fairy tales. Then present something more compelling than fairy tales.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We're agreed then that faith is frivolous and has no bearing on the truth of something.

No one said it did..

Think about how many different "faiths" that exists they can't all be true now can they?

Like a blind dog in a meat locker ... so close, yet so far away ...

[Huggy Bear]

Finally, that I don't know the cause for something IN NO WAY says that I cannot know what was NOT the cause.  Do you claim to not know the universe was not caused by sentient marshmallows?  Do you feel the need to evaluate this ludicrous claim?  Are you not thinking seriously about it, knowing full well you will never know for sure that sentient marshmallows didn't create the universe?  No.  You dismiss it immediately.  Did you do that because you DO know what caused the universe?  No.  You may think you know, but you have no proof and therefore it is a belief, not knowledge.  So YOU "don't know" what caused the universe, but you are reasonable in your assumption that you can rule out sentient marshmallows.  And if you did not immediately rule out sentient marshmallows then you're just stupid.  Why would something utterly stupid that I just made up be deserving of serious consideration instead of simple cursory dismissal?  It would not.  There are a million things you "know" didn't cause the universe, and not one of those things is something you know because you have any real knowledge of what did cause the universe.  You CAN both not know what IS the cause AND know what is not the cause.

*emphasis mine*

I love when you guys come up with silly analogies proving that you missed the point...

We are talking about a point in time where as Simon put it "no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature" existed. In order for a sentient marshmallow to exist, the former has to also exist, so I can safely rule out sentient marshmallow on that basis.

However God is a spirit. A spirit does not exist within the laws of nature, it is a supernatural being, and therefore not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time...

[Faith No More]

We are talking about a point in time where as Simon put it "no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature" existed. In order for a sentient marshmallow to exist, the former has to also exist, so I can safely rule out sentient marshmallow on that basis.

How can we talk about a point in time when there was no time?

However God is a spirit. A spirit does not exist within the laws of nature, it is a supernatural being, and therefore not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time...

Lol, tell us again how that's not a fairy tale.

[Huggy Bear]

We are talking about a point in time where as Simon put it "no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature" existed. In order for a sentient marshmallow to exist, the former has to also exist, so I can safely rule out sentient marshmallow on that basis.

How can we talk about a point in time when there was no time?

Seeing how time is relative it's totally doable.

You do realize that from our perspective it may take a photon years to reach it's destination, but from the point of view of a photon, it takes no time at all, it's instantaneous.

However God is a spirit. A spirit does not exist within the laws of nature, it is a supernatural being, and therefore not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time...

Lol, tell us again how that's not a fairy tale.

Seeing how every living thing has a spirit (including you), I don't see how you figure it is, especially when there are cases that suggest consciousness can exist without a functioning brain.