Quote:God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

Presuppositionalism

Also utterly unconvincing, and dishonest in the context of this tread, if i may add.

(November 24, 2021 at 9:09 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

Quote:God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

Presuppositionalism

Also utterly unconvincing, and dishonest in the context of this tread, if i may add.

Buy yeah, when I am dead, then (and, apparently, only then) God will reveal himself to me in all of his glory. This "relationship", if it exists, is a passive aggressive relationship, and I feel that I am being abused.

FSM, being FSM, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how Xhe should reveal Ximself, But will do so happily because Xhe isn't a jerk
RAmen

(November 24, 2021 at 9:49 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(November 24, 2021 at 9:09 am)Deesse23 Wrote: Presuppositionalism

Also utterly unconvincing, and dishonest in the context of this tread, if i may add.

Buy yeah, when I am dead, then (and, apparently, only then) God will reveal himself to me in all of his glory.  This "relationship", if it exists, is a passive aggressive relationship, and I feel that I am being abused.

 Yeah. Not to mention transactional.  God's largesse depends on you obeying a list of rules, starting with it being mandatory to love god. 

Abrahamic law, known as just "The Law" or Mitzvot, consists of 613 commandments.  Strangely, Judaism does is very vague when it comes to notions of heaven or hell. 

Although that may seem odd to us, the notion of an afterlife was by no means universal in ancient religions.  One tried to placate or cajole one's god(s). Either to get something, ranging from rain to that desirable some one or to simply prevent said god smiting you. 

Moses' YHWH of the Torah was a monster.  If I believed in him, I probably be doing all I could so that he would just ignore me. 

(November 23, 2021 at 5:48 am)Deesse23 Wrote:

(November 22, 2021 at 3:29 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: As I stated before, you can't rule out hidden determinism.

You cant rule out pink pixies as well.

You're quoting me out of context. At the macroscopic level, we do have causality. The so-called uncertainty principle in QM implies that we can't have full information of what happens at the subatomic level. This simply means that we can't detect a violation of causality in the first place, that's my point, and that's why QM is irrelevant, it neither clearly confirms nor rejects causality, because as I said above, there is always room for determinism. Acausality in the context of QM means that we are unable to point out the causes of some effect , this certainly doesn't mean that are no causes of these effects.

And because the theory of relativity preserves causality, it's reasonable to assume that the principle is correct.
 

(November 23, 2021 at 5:48 am)Deesse23 Wrote: For ages it is sais that with the advance of science, the theistics god(s) is pushed further and further "away" into the (yet) unexplored niches of reality. Then there is Kloro, the poster boy for this sterotype, arguing that "causation, therefore god".

That's not really what I am arguing for, you know. Causation is only a premise in the cosmological argument, it doesn't prove the existence of a deity per se.

(December 1, 2021 at 3:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(November 23, 2021 at 5:48 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You cant rule out pink pixies as well.

You're quoting me out of context. 

Context does not matter in case of faulty reasoning. Your faulty reasoning was centered on shifting the burden of proof.

You argued that one cant rule out hidden determinism (as the basis for your god claim), therefore you are right.
I just exposed your faulty reasoning by exchanging hidden determinism for pixies as the basis of whatever (god) claim i am pulling out of my ass.

Context is really irrelevant here.

(December 1, 2021 at 3:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: That's not really what I am arguing for, you know. Causation is only a premise in the cosmological argument, it doesn't prove the existence of a deity per se.

For the record: You the theist on an atheist board, are arguing in a thread about "(a)theism", and your goal is not to demonstrate a certain deity is the cause of the uni/multiverse, but simply that causation is a thing, even on a fundamental/quantum level? You, the theist are arguing against potential non-determinism, against non-causation, not for your deity to insert but just because?
You like the cosmological argument not because you think it affirms the belief you already have*, but because you think its sound?
And you think anyone here is gonna buy that?


*i am assuming you didnt become a theist by evaluating the cosmological argument, but for other reasons, like almost everybody else, who argues per cosmological argument. You dont believe because of it, but you like to defend your belief with it, correct? For the record: I find it mildly dishonest to try to convince others with arguments, by which you werent (most probably) convinced to believe yourself.

(December 1, 2021 at 3:43 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(December 1, 2021 at 3:13 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: You're quoting me out of context. 

Context does not matter in case of faulty reasoning. Your faulty reasoning was centered on shifting the burden of proof.

You argued that one cant rule out hidden determinism (as the basis for your god claim), therefore you are right.

No, that's not what I argued. See? context is important.

My argument is that: (causality is undetectable at the quantum level due to the uncertainty principle + Relativity preserves causality) => It's reasonable to assume causality is true.

Remember : relativity does assume causation. Anyone who invokes QM to reject causality simply doesn't understand QM.

---

(December 1, 2021 at 3:43 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: *i am assuming you didnt become a theist by evaluating the cosmological argument, but for other reasons, like almost everybody else, who argues per cosmological argument. You dont believe because of it, but you like to defend your belief with it, correct? For the record: I find it mildly dishonest to try to convince others with arguments, by which you werent (most probably) convinced to believe yourself.

You're right. What did convince me of God isn't this argument, but simply the appearance of order and complexity around me, that's it.

(December 1, 2021 at 3:52 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: You're right. What did convince me of God isn't this argument, but simply the appearance of order and complexity around me, that's it.

For the sake of argument i am assuming now that first you were thinking about order and complexity before you ever picked up your holy book for the first time, and that you werent indoctrinated first, before you tried to shore up your belief with the appearance of order and complexity:

Then why dont you defend the fundament of your belief (for the sake of argument: order and complexity) instead of an admitted irrelevancy?

After all it was you who started this thread, and you didnt name it "i believe in a god because of the appearance of order and complexity". No, you chose to focus on a kind of whataboutism, on trying to tear down any (strawman) atheist reasoning, instead of talking about why you believe.

Why 60 pages of quantum irrelevancies? Why invoking the problem of evil irrelevancy? Why the divine hiddenness irrelevancy? Why addressing everything but the reason you believe?

He doesn't actually know why he believes - like most of them.

(December 1, 2021 at 3:52 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 1, 2021 at 3:43 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: *i am assuming you didnt become a theist by evaluating the cosmological argument, but for other reasons, like almost everybody else, who argues per cosmological argument. You dont believe because of it, but you like to defend your belief with it, correct? For the record: I find it mildly dishonest to try to convince others with arguments, by which you werent (most probably) convinced to believe yourself.

You're right. What did convince me of God isn't this argument, but simply the appearance of order and complexity around me, that's it.

Wow, are you a cheap date.