(July 12, 2024 at 5:50 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(July 10, 2024 at 2:51 pm)brewer Wrote: There is concrete evidence for that theory. Your argument is a false equivalence fallacy.

Your reasons are only a validation/justification for faith, an abstraction. And in case you don't understand 'truth' is subjective.

I agree it's a false equivalence fallacy, since an argument, even were it sound, need not have its conclusion supported by any objective evidence. FWIW I have yet to see an example of the KCA that was sound, since it makes unevidenced assumptions about the thing being argued for, which are begging the question fallacies. 

It uses just such an assumption about a deity creator, when it arbitrarily assumes this deity has always existed, in order to create a special pleading fallacy, to avoid the rule it created that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause". Firstly, we only know this is true for the things we currently understand, and secondly in every single instance those causes are only evidenced within the temporal condition of the physical universe, and lastly those causes are always natural. In every version of the KCA I see, this is used to create a false equivalence about the state before the big bang. 

Lastly the KCA is not an argument for a deity, it's a first cause argument, assuming the cause was a their deity of choice is pure assumption. One could substitute anything for the deity in the argument, and arbitrarily assign it the same attributes, and the argument loses nothing. Without any objective evidence to demonstrate a deity exists, or is even possible, the argument is not very compelling. 

Paradoxically, scientific theories like the big bang don't rely on subjective argument,  they must be supported by sufficient objective evidence, they must be objectively verifiable through experiment and testing, they must make real world predictions that match objective reality, and of course unlike unevidenced deities from archaic superstitions using inexplicable magic. they must be falsifiable,and have some explanatory powers. Since "God did it" is a claim, it explains nothing. 

Fine tuning is a claim, not an argument, one would need to demonstrate the universe is fine tuned, not simply assert it, the phrase is only used as a metaphor by scientists, and of course even were anyone able to demonstrate it were "fine tuned" this would not necessarily evidence any eity, again this is pure assumption. 

Similarly one would need to demonstrate that what one argues is necessary for existence, is in fact so, this would of course require sufficient objective evidence for a deity (in this case), and that a deity is even possible, then that it is the deity this person has chosen to hold a subjective belief exists outside of the human imagination. 

As another poster asserted, I don't believe you can simply argue something into existence, without demonstrating sufficient objective evidence that it exists, or that it is at least possible. 

Ipso facto, I remain disbelieving.

Hello Sheldon, welcome to the forum.

Can I interest you in creating an Introduction thread?

(July 12, 2024 at 6:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Good post, btw.

Boru

I am aware of course that they (deities) are possible in the abstract, I don't believe they are objectively possible, as I have seen no evidence to support this. For clarity, I am not claiming deities are impossible, as I think the notion, at least in every concept I have encountered, is unfalsifiable. 

To further clarify my position (since I am new) I am an atheist as I don't believe any deity exists. I am also an gnostic, when presented with any concept claim or idea (including deities) that is unfalsifiable, and I must also remain disbelieving of all unfalsifiable ideas, since to believe them all would violate the law of non-contradiction and thus be irrational, and to believe some, or one, but not others, must involve bias for or against, and thus be closed minded by definition. so I must disbelieve them all, but keep an open mind. 

I hope this makes some sense, but if not would welcome critical scrutiny. 

Quote:simply because a thing is possible doesn’t mean we must necessarily take that possibility seriously.

I agree of course, and was only pointing out that I have never seen any objective evidence a deity is even possible, let alone exists. I was not claiming a deity is impossible, as I cannot meet my own epistemological burden of proof for such a generic and unfalsifiable claim. 

Thank you for the compliment, and my apologies for my clumsy use of the quote function, I am still feeling my way around the editing functions. Hopefully I will get the hang of it all in due course... until then I hope everyone will indulge me...

Indulgence granted.

Boru

(July 12, 2024 at 12:52 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 11, 2024 at 7:38 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Every living creature is born into a universe where it's necessary to kill in order to live. That might fit a malevolent god but militates against any benevolent deity.

Yep. "For God so loved the world that he gave his son ..." and his cows ... and his sheep(le) ... and them chickenfooted things ... and some nice hogs, 'cept cain't everyone eat 'em ... and some broccoli, except they don't count because they're not alive once we chop 'em ..and ..

It's the old Jethro Tull lyric: "He who made kittens / put snakes in the grass".

For God so hated the World, that he slew his only misbegotten son, that whoever disbelieves in him should not perish, but have everlasting torment.

I'm pretty sure I can make a better case for a malevolent deity than any apologist does for their warm and fuzzy god. Problem of Evil? No, that's a feature!

And the broccoli should probably count double. That crispy crunch you get when you bite into a vegetable is an indicator that you've just gnawed upon a living organism. At least we carnivores have the decency to kill our food before we start biting chunks off.

(July 12, 2024 at 6:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Gods are certainly possible...

Are they though? Setting aside the ones that are clearly incoherent (looking at you Abrahamic deities) how does one even develop an epistemology that functions "outside" of space and time to assess if it's possible for a deity to "exist" there? Possibly better to state that they aren't definitely impossible.

(July 12, 2024 at 7:05 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(July 12, 2024 at 12:52 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yep. "For God so loved the world that he gave his son ..." and his cows ... and his sheep(le) ... and them chickenfooted things ... and some nice hogs, 'cept cain't everyone eat 'em ... and some broccoli, except they don't count because they're not alive once we chop 'em ..and ..

It's the old Jethro Tull lyric: "He who made kittens / put snakes in the grass".

For God so hated the World, that he slew his only misbegotten son, that whoever disbelieves in him should not perish, but have everlasting torment.

I'm pretty sure I can make a better case for a malevolent deity than any apologist does for their warm and fuzzy god. Problem of Evil? No, that's a feature!

And the broccoli should probably count double. That crispy crunch you get when you bite into a vegetable is an indicator that you've just gnawed upon a living organism. At least we carnivores have the decency to kill our food before we start biting chunks off.

You had my kudos until you mentioned broccoli. I love it fresh or in stir-fry and you are hereby dead to me.

PS -- the crunch is only an indicator of how much fiber it gives you out of love.

(July 12, 2024 at 10:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 12, 2024 at 7:05 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: For God so hated the World, that he slew his only misbegotten son, that whoever disbelieves in him should not perish, but have everlasting torment.

I'm pretty sure I can make a better case for a malevolent deity than any apologist does for their warm and fuzzy god. Problem of Evil? No, that's a feature!

And the broccoli should probably count double. That crispy crunch you get when you bite into a vegetable is an indicator that you've just gnawed upon a living organism. At least we carnivores have the decency to kill our food before we start biting chunks off.

You had my kudos until you mentioned broccoli. I love it fresh or in stir-fry and you are hereby dead to me.

PS -- the crunch is only an indicator of how much fiber it gives you out of love.

You mistake my meaning. Broccoli is delicious, though my preference is lightly steamed. The crunch is hardly specific to broccoli, being similarly found in a variety of vegetables in the fruiting bodies, leaves, roots, and properly BBQed infants. It tells you that you've just consumed a living organism that will be slowly digested over a thousand years.

(July 12, 2024 at 11:44 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(July 12, 2024 at 10:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You had my kudos until you mentioned broccoli. I love it fresh or in stir-fry and you are hereby dead to me.

PS -- the crunch is only an indicator of how much fiber it gives you out of love.

You mistake my meaning. Broccoli is delicious, though my preference is lightly steamed. The crunch is hardly specific to broccoli, being similarly found in a variety of vegetables in the fruiting bodies, leaves, roots, and properly BBQed infants. It tells you that you've just consumed a living organism that will be slowly digested over a thousand years.

Yeah, I'm clearly missing your meaning, as I'm already half-past my sell-by date but well short of a thousand years.

(July 10, 2024 at 3:00 pm)SaintPeter Wrote: The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest named Fr. Georges Lemaitre. At the time, it was attacked by some Atheists, who disliked its implications of a temporal beginning of the Universe, as smacking too much and being reminiscent of Divine Creation; but today, it is the most widely accepted theory in Cosmology.

This is strange. Nishant believes in the big bang but not in evolution. Isn't that self contradictory?

Nah. A person can believe that god was the one what did the banging, or that god was what happened nine months after said banging -and- has since been sticking it's gummy fingers in all the biology.

...as just a couple of examples of how those two beliefs can fit in a larger constellation of beliefs. Judging from the quote, it's a combination of the two. What would be interesting, is which one of those planks is more important. Which one do you burn to save the other, if need be? Are we okay with a god that didn't create the universe but did specially create™ us? Or would we prefer a god that created the universe even if it didn't specially create™ us.