I thought it was the banana that proved atheism wrong?

Another day another kloro forum dump, Thoughts and prayers.
RAMen

(September 8, 2021 at 9:31 am)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 1:09 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Yes, as an explanation for the origin of the universe, any unfalsifiable hypothesis it is functionally and practically useless. 

Why do you think that if some disembodied entity or construct x is unfalsifiable, then x is useless??

Because you have no way of demonstrating that it’s true. 

Quote:If we were to play this game, I can say that all true propositions are unfalsifiable.

You can say that, but you’d be wrong, lol. 

Quote:An explanation of the origin of the universe is tautologically outside of the universe.

So what?

Quote:anything that is outside the universe is also outside of the reach of any experiment we can possibly come up with, because it doesn't follow physical/chemical laws.

You might be right, and yet here you are on AF; asserting absolute certainty about its cause none the less, and calling us irrational for not believing you. I suspect you realize how absolutely silly that is, which is why you spend so much time here trying to rationalize your claims.

(September 8, 2021 at 5:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 9:31 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Why do you think that if some disembodied entity or construct x is unfalsifiable, then x is useless??

Because you have no way of demonstrating that it’s true. 

Quote:If we were to play this game, I can say that all true propositions are unfalsifiable.

You can say that, but you’d be wrong, lol. 

Quote:An explanation of the origin of the universe is tautologically outside of the universe.

So what?

Quote:anything that is outside the universe is also outside of the reach of any experiment we can possibly come up with, because it doesn't follow physical/chemical laws.

You might be right, and yet here you are on AF; asserting absolute certainty about its cause none the less, and calling us irrational for not believing you. I suspect you realize how absolutely silly that is, which is why you spend so much time here trying to rationalize your claims.

Once again you've laid out a concise, coherent, cogent reply to Kolorophyll and all I can think of is the analogy of trying to play chess with a pigeon.

@Klorophyll

Is the cosmological argument the reason you believe in a god?

(September 8, 2021 at 5:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 9:31 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Why do you think that if some disembodied entity or construct x is unfalsifiable, then x is useless??

Because you have no way of demonstrating that it’s true. 

Quote:If we were to play this game, I can say that all true propositions are unfalsifiable.

You can say that, but you’d be wrong, lol. 

Quote:An explanation of the origin of the universe is tautologically outside of the universe.

So what?

Quote:anything that is outside the universe is also outside of the reach of any experiment we can possibly come up with, because it doesn't follow physical/chemical laws.

You might be right, and yet here you are on AF; asserting absolute certainty about its cause none the less, and calling us irrational for not believing you. I suspect you realize how absolutely silly that is, which is why you spend so much time here trying to rationalize your claims.

Or more rationalizing why he doesn't have to put any real effort into proving his claims

(September 8, 2021 at 5:21 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 5:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Because you have no way of demonstrating that it’s true. 


You can say that, but you’d be wrong, lol. 


So what?


You might be right, and yet here you are on AF; asserting absolute certainty about its cause none the less, and calling us irrational for not believing you. I suspect you realize how absolutely silly that is, which is why you spend so much time here trying to rationalize your claims.

Once again you've laid out a concise, coherent, cogent reply to Kolorophyll and all I can think of is the analogy of trying to play chess with a pigeon.

Awww, thanks, love! You just made my day. ❤️

(September 7, 2021 at 7:48 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well, I’m convinced. God is a jar of peanut butter.

Boru

That's what's been keeping me going lately...I suppose my holy trinity is currently peanut butter (crunchy please), grape jam, and some sort of bread type product.

(September 8, 2021 at 12:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 11:47 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: I am saying it is as totally and complete indistinguishable from nonexistence as any arbitrary bullshit things any bullshitter ever cared to make up on the spur of amt moment, which is indeed the very maximally strong assertion of no existence as can ever be leveled at any notional thing whatsoever.

Not really, God isn't equivalent to Russell's teapot. Russell's teapot is an arbitrary object inside the universe. God is posited to be the cause of the universe. Positing a personal cause of the universe can't really be put hand to hand with any arbitrary assertion about existence.
Also, proving God's existence can have an effect in our life. If we prove the theistic God, then an afterlife very probably exists, and answering prayers becomes possible, etc. Proving Russell's teapot, for example, won't change anything, and doesn't imply an afterlife.

Doesn’t matter what additional ad hoc qualifier you dream up that appears to you to make your ad hoc bullshit god harder to disprove.   Disproval was totally unneeded to dismiss your god before you dreamt up the qualifier, it is just as totally unneeded afterwards.     

Without your qualifier, Your god can be trivially dismissed as something that could not possibly be more bullshitty.   with the additions of your qualifier, it can still be dismissed with the exact same level of certainty as being of exactly that same sublime level of bullshittiness.

Btw, the fact that existence of something may appear to you to  have some effect that you would weakwittedly crave, does not in any way contribute to making that thing even slightly more likely to actually exist, much less contribute to a formulating a passable proof of such a thing existing.

(September 8, 2021 at 5:31 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 8, 2021 at 12:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Not really, God isn't equivalent to Russell's teapot. Russell's teapot is an arbitrary object inside the universe. God is posited to be the cause of the universe. Positing a personal cause of the universe can't really be put hand to hand with any arbitrary assertion about existence.
Also, proving God's existence can have an effect in our life. If we prove the theistic God, then an afterlife very probably exists, and answering prayers becomes possible, etc. Proving Russell's teapot, for example, won't change anything, and doesn't imply an afterlife.

Doesn’t matter what additional ad hoc qualifier you dream up that appears to you to make your as hoc bullshit god harder to disprove.   Disproval was totally unneeded to dismiss your god before you dreamt up the qualifier, it is just as totally unneeded afterwards.     

Without your qualifier, Your god can be trivially dismissed as something that could not possibly be more bullshitty.   it can still be dismissed with the exact same level of certainty as being of exactly that same sublime level of bullshittiness with the additions of your qualifier.

Theology is an attempt to use made-up superpowers to explain away things