Posts: 1132
Threads: 0
Joined: July 8, 2024
Reputation:
9
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 1:03 pm
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2025 at 2:36 pm by Sheldon.)
(April 9, 2025 at 12:52 pm)Alan V Wrote: I am amazed that so many people seem desperate to link religious ideas to cutting-edge scientific hypotheses. The many books written linking science and mysticism are embarrassing.
Do the people involved in these efforts even ask themselves if religion and mysticism can add anything useful to science, or do they just want to muddy the waters?
It's even funnier when you consider Drew is citing scientific hypotheses, and misrepresenting them as established scientific theories, citing natural scientific phenomena, and misrepresenting them as having a supernatural cause, and misrepresenting science as supporting this. While simultaneously claiming there is a global scientific conspiracy, that is biased against deities and the supernatural. It's an irony overload.
Posts: 1132
Threads: 0
Joined: July 8, 2024
Reputation:
9
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 1:13 pm
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2025 at 1:13 pm by Sheldon.)
(April 9, 2025 at 1:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 12:38 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it?
On another forum, I pointed out a fallacy in one of his replies. His response was to suggest that he could find fallacies in my posts, too. I think rhetoric is a more telling master for him than logic. Yes, it's hard to debate the "nu uh, you are" argument for sure. You have to see the irony though, when his fallacious argument is pointed out, he resorts to whataboutism, which is also fallacious, and is considered to be a form of the tu quoque fallacy.
I don't mind that someone is unware their argument is irrational, or that they make an error, as we are all capable of this. What irks, is when they ignore the fact, and then go on to dishonestly repeat the argument. Often moving from forum to forum to do this, which is pretty compelling evidence they think they can bluff others, when they have failed elsewhere.
Lies for Jesus, is a pretty common tactic unfortunately among many apologists. The rationale seems to be that it's ok to lie, if it brings someone to their religion.
Posts: 12052
Threads: 30
Joined: December 8, 2019
Reputation:
14
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 2:05 pm
Why should the cosmos be constrain by our lack of imagination ?
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
![[Image: Canada_Flag.jpg?v=1646203843]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=cdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0630%2F5310%2F3332%2Fproducts%2FCanada_Flag.jpg%3Fv%3D1646203843)
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Posts: 274
Threads: 6
Joined: February 15, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 4:38 pm
(April 9, 2025 at 12:57 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 11:49 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? If it were so and we could observe other universes with the same properties, laws of physics, stars, planets solar systems it would only leave us to believe universes are caused to exist to produce life. It would be the same explanation why motherboards are identical, because they are intentionally caused to be identical.
Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.
Administrator Notice
Drew you may want to read over our rules. Your changing of Angrboda's name in this quote is dangerously close to breaking rule 18 and also verging on breaking rule 15. This is your only free pass. To the best of my knowledge I clicked reply and posted to the person that wrote the message. No name change was intentional.
Posts: 48740
Threads: 551
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 4:50 pm
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2025 at 4:54 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(April 9, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 12:57 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Administrator Notice
Drew you may want to read over our rules. Your changing of Angrboda's name in this quote is dangerously close to breaking rule 18 and also verging on breaking rule 15. This is your only free pass. To the best of my knowledge I clicked reply and posted to the person that wrote the message. No name change was intentional.
I’m not sure how you could have put the word ‘narrow’ in front of Angrboda’s name unintentionally.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 274
Threads: 6
Joined: February 15, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 5:28 pm
(April 9, 2025 at 12:38 pm)Sheldon Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 11:49 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe?
I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it?
It is irrational / fallacious, to claim something is or might be true, because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence.
The entire dialog is a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We don't know if other universes exist, or if they do exist for some unknown reason they had be the same as the universe we live in. Despite not knowing if any of those things are true, the conversation was about if such is true. As a rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument I was given a what if scenario. What if other universes exist and they're all the same as this one. I pointed out it wouldn't help the argument our existence was unintentional.
Quote:Lets try larger letters, see if that helps?
It helps you appear to be a petulant little child who stomps his feet when he doesn't get his way. If that was your intent yes it helps.
Quote:Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory?
Quote:Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, does this fact influence your decision to believe in alchemy at all? Please explain why it does, or does not, so I can try and understand why you keep rehashing the same fallacious arguments.
Isaac Newton wasn't wrong about alchemy. He just didn't have the power of a supernova in his lab. Hydrogen and helium can be fused into exotic matter like gold platinum and many other elements.
Quote:You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.
You don't seem to read very well, since this is another dishonest straw man, so lets try big letters again then:
Quote:On the contrary I don't believe the multiverse hypothesis evidences anything supernatural, or any deity, and I have already stated this fact, more than once. I don't care who believes in multiverses, and I don't care what their reasons are, only what the methods of science can and has validated.
Has science validated your claim we owe the existence to non-God explanations? Have they validated the claim is wasn't intentionally caused by a Creator?
Quote:Whilst theoretical scientific hypothesis are both essential to advance our knowledge, and no doubt fascinating and edifying in any number of ways, they are not established or accepted scientific theories, and this has also been explained already. Multiverse is an hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory. Do you understand this, and what it means?
Stop with the hubris I can understand what you say and disagree precisely for that reason. I can show you the word theory and hypothesis are used interchangeably Both multiverse and cosmic inflation are listed as scientific theories even though they don't have the evidence to make them accepted scientific theories. Technically yes its a hypothesis.
Quote:We once had no natural explanation for lightning, and so people insisted it had a supernatural cause. Their reasoning like yours here was fallacious / poor, and they were wrong.
The fallacy is circular reasoning. If a scientist in a weather simulation causes the conditions that cause simulated lightening to occur would you say that lightening was caused naturally? Likewise if the universe was intentionally created with the laws of physics would it still be accurate to say it was the result of natural causes if ultimately it goes back to a Creator that caused the laws of physics? To declare lightening, gravity, laws of physics are natural phenomenon, we have to know its natural forces 'all the way down'. The argument is the assumption of naturalism in the gaps.
Quote:Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over.
Doesn't mean there is. If it turned out we owed our existence to an advanced scientist in a another sphere of existence, would you consider that a natural explanation? Why not, humans might be able to do so or at least simulate it. Would you consider scientists who do that in the future to be supernatural deities?
Posts: 17962
Threads: 135
Joined: July 10, 2013
Reputation:
65
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 5:43 pm
(April 9, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 12:57 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Administrator Notice
Drew you may want to read over our rules. Your changing of Angrboda's name in this quote is dangerously close to breaking rule 18 and also verging on breaking rule 15. This is your only free pass. To the best of my knowledge I clicked reply and posted to the person that wrote the message. No name change was intentional.
Therein lies the problem - to the best of your knowledge.
It didn't happen spontaneously...ya know...without a creator.
I'm your huckleberry.
Posts: 274
Threads: 6
Joined: February 15, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 8:57 pm
(April 9, 2025 at 4:50 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 4:38 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: To the best of my knowledge I clicked reply and posted to the person that wrote the message. No name change was intentional.
I’m not sure how you could have put the word ‘narrow’ in front of Angrboda’s name unintentionally.
Boru
All I did was reply like I am now. I respond to many posts per visit. Had I intended it I would have done so in the body of the text. To the best of my knowledge we've exchanged a few posts with out any serious rancor.
Posts: 274
Threads: 6
Joined: February 15, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2025 at 5:22 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(April 9, 2025 at 1:01 pm)Angrboda Wrote: (April 9, 2025 at 12:38 pm)Sheldon Wrote: I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it?
On another forum, I pointed out a fallacy in one of his replies. His response was to suggest that he could find fallacies in my posts, too. I think rhetoric is a more telling master for him than logic.
You can find fallacies in any posts not just yours. The beauty is most folks in here list one of these but never explain why the fallacy applies to what I said. All they do is list one. I could pull the abusive Ad Hominen on your post. You're saying something terrible about me...booo hooo hooo.
The one they don't mention is the fallafetish fallacy. The obsession with finding so called fallacies.
Posts: 274
Threads: 6
Joined: February 15, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 9:21 pm
(April 9, 2025 at 1:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @Sheldon
Quote:Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over.
And yet he can’t admit that he’s invoking magic. That’s what magic is - a natural phenomenon that we haven’t yet found the explanation for.
Boru
Its questionable who is invoking magic. Would it be more magical for a laptop to come together and assemble itself minus any plan or intent to do so? Or is it less magical if the laptop was created by intelligent autonomous beings on purpose? You won't answer the question but its obvious. It would be far more magical and unexpected if a laptop was caused by some unheard of natural process. Nothing would be more magical than if mindless natural forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, caused a universe with all the conditions to cause life to exist, caused the laws of physics we are utterly dependent on.
The reason atheists are such a minority is because you sell a fish story few believe.
|
