(April 10, 2025 at 5:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 1:49 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Lets try again:

1. Why do you think the only two choices are:
a) Certainty no deity created the universe?
b) Belief in a deity? 
2. Do you know what a false dichotomy fallacy is?
3. Do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?
4. Do you know what agnosticism means? (I only ask, as you misrepresented atheism several times)
5. If you don't know whether something is true, is it reasonable to believe it to be so?
6. If you don't know, and so don't believe, that any deity exists, what word(s) best describes you?
7. If some god claims can be disproved, but others not, but you still don't know the latter are true, what word(s) best describe you?

Can we start a betting pool on how many of these questions will be answered?

Boru

I'll have a tenner on none please. 

What odds are you offering he won't come back at all? His posts seemed mainly to be a lame attempt at face saving, so if he hides from the objections, he can pretend his arguments were compelling, and we're just too dumb to get it. I bet he's on some religious board right now, telling anyone who will listen, that he rinsed the atheists here properly. 

We can run a side bet on how many fallacies he repeats.

(April 11, 2025 at 2:09 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(April 10, 2025 at 5:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Can we start a betting pool on how many of these questions will be answered?

Boru

I'll have a tenner on none please. 

We can run a side bet on how many fallacies he repeats.

Of course. We can even have an over/under on how many of the questions he doesn't answer, but claims he did.

Boru

(April 11, 2025 at 2:09 am)Sheldon Wrote: What odds are you offering he won't come back at all? His posts seemed mainly to be a lame attempt at face saving, so if he hides from the objections, he can pretend his arguments were compelling, and we're just too dumb to get it. I bet he's on some religious board right now, telling anyone who will listen, that he rinsed the atheists here properly. 

We can run a side bet on how many fallacies he repeats.

Different people learn at different rates. Some take forever.

I still feel sorry for people like that. They spend a lot of time and effort trying to rationalize ideas which they should simply abandon.

Goodness so much stupid 

Quote:Exactly why so few people are atheists. Then it shouldn't reject theism either.

No the reason so few people are atheists is the dieses of irrationality and theism has no evidence and thus can be rejected till it does 

Quote:You don't need to see one being made to reason it was intentionally caused to exist...right?

The fact we know it is a man made object render the analogy to the universe moot 

Quote:Debunked simply means people (atheists) disagreed with what he said. Furthermore in his time it wasn't known to the degree that the universe is fine-tuned for life.

Debunking means your statement objectively refuted (which it has been ) To date you have shown no fine tuning

Quote:Do you know of some force inside spacetime that caused spacetime to exist? We have mountains of evidence that natural forces came into existence. That tells us nothing about what caused them to exist or why the myriad of exacting properties and characteristics for life obtained.

You assume space time began to exist rather then simply changed in configuration. There is actually no evidence natural forces came into existence . Actually the fact there are tells us everything about why because everything to do with life realies on natural forces  and to date you never shown any exacting properties are required you simply point to one known world with life and insist that because life developed there that's all there is

Quote:You don't have a decent counter explanation and that's why few people claim to be atheists.

Atheist don't require one and actual reason most people are irrational 

Quote:They would still be in just as narrow a range as ever only now you're saying for some reason, they had to be in that narrow range. I believe it was designed to be in that narrow range and if other universes are the same that just more evidence it was intentionally caused. I'm pointing out this is a bad argument

To date you have never shown that they are narrow let alone that they should be narrow in any other universe 

Quote:How did the forces that caused the universe to expand operate? Were those 'natural' forces inside spacetime that hadn't come into existence yet? A laptop isn't the universe its a far less complex contrivance. If mindless natural forces can cause the universe a laptop is child's play.

This assumes without reason that space time came into existence that there are natural outside of space time this there is a first cause ete etc etc. Once again comparing a man made object who origins are known and whose creator is known to the universe which has none of those qualities false analogy

Assumptions 

Assertions 

Incredulity 

Conjecture

No real arguments or evidence

(April 11, 2025 at 4:54 am)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Assumptions 

Assertions 

Incredulity 

Conjecture

No real arguments or evidence

(Bold mine)

To be fair, he is making real arguments, just really bad ones.

Boru

(April 11, 2025 at 4:06 am)Alan V Wrote:

(April 11, 2025 at 2:09 am)Sheldon Wrote: What odds are you offering he won't come back at all? His posts seemed mainly to be a lame attempt at face saving, so if he hides from the objections, he can pretend his arguments were compelling, and we're just too dumb to get it. I bet he's on some religious board right now, telling anyone who will listen, that he rinsed the atheists here properly. 

We can run a side bet on how many fallacies he repeats.

Different people learn at different rates.  Some take forever.

I still feel sorry for people like that.  They spend a lot of time and effort trying to rationalize ideas which they should simply abandon.

Quite a few years ago, in a discussion, I used an argumentum ad populum fallacy. I was so annoyed at what seemed like handwaving in Latin. That I went way and learned what it meant. The other person was right, I'd made a bare appeal to numbers. I made sure I learned as many common logical fallacies as I could find, and try never to use fallacious arguments now. If I were to do so, I would not only cough to it, I'd be glad, as I'd likely have learned something new and useful. 

As you say, it's hard not to feel sorry when apologists devote so much effort to defending irrational arguments. Sadly, if you start with a belief that you're not prepared to abandon, this is bound to happen. I mean if my position ever required I contradict known fact, or a dictionary definition to defend it, I'd have to discard that belief. There is no belief I wouldn't abandon if the objective evidence made it untenable. 

I have on occasion, in other forums, earned the ire of other atheists, only rarely, when they make sweeping absolute claims, that seem to be unfalsifiable, and I ask them to demonstrate some objective evidence. Recently a poster asserted, without a hint of irony:

"There is no evidence for any god, and there never will be."

The last part in particular caught my eye. So the first depends on what standard one sets for evidence, and whether it is sufficient to base belief on. Generally I always say objective, or objectively verifiable evidence, as subjective and anecdotal claims abound, as do facts that are wedged into fallacious and poorly reasoned arguments. 

The chap was not a happy badger, and I endured as much ad hominem from him, as I ever did from any apologist. He properly lost it, instead of thinking he might have just overreached with this claim. Though it was pretty funny to see someone claim to know what evidence will or will not be forthcoming in the future, then accuse me of hyperbole. he also asserted that atheism was a belief, and would not budge on that, and that agnosticism and atheism were mutually exclusive. A few seconds online could have disavowed him of those notions, but again no amount of quoting the dictionary, made any dent in his confidence. If there is ever a dispute over any word, even if I think I know the definition verbatim, I always check I haven't accidentally stepped on my dick, far better to admit an error than storm off in a flounce, surely?

(April 11, 2025 at 6:00 am)Sheldon Wrote: As you say, it's hard not to feel sorry when apologists devote so much effort to defending irrational arguments. Sadly, if you start with a belief that you're not prepared to abandon, this is bound to happen. I mean if my position ever required I contradict known fact, or a dictionary definition to defend it, I'd have to discard that belief. There is no belief I wouldn't abandon if the objective evidence made it untenable. 

Evolutionary psychology tells us that people defend their ideas for social reasons, but it still comes down to a sunk-cost fallacy if those ideas don't hold up to critical scrutiny.

However, I do appreciate the argument that scientists need to explain the biofriendly characteristics of our universe if there is no multiverse. I give Drew that much credit.

The argument just doesn't have that much to do with atheists per se. We have abandoned the God-concept for a number of other reasons, and God is an uneconomical hypothesis to explain either the big bang or the specific characteristics of the universe which actually resulted from it.

(April 11, 2025 at 7:11 am)Alan V Wrote: However, I do appreciate the argument that scientists need to explain the biofriendly characteristics of our universe if there is no multiverse.  I give Drew that much credit.  

I think that when believers like Drew attempt to find scientific evidence for the existence of God, it is like a compliment they pay to science, and our modern habits of mind. 

In our time and place, science is considered the best (or perhaps the only) way to know about the world. When Christians then attempt a fine-tuning argument, or some pseudo-scientific intelligent design argument, they are attempting to use the tools of the modern world. They are saying, in effect, "only science will persuade you? OK, I'll use science." But I think this will never succeed. 

Science, obviously, uses methodological materialism as its foundation, and that is just not the right approach for metaphysical questions. Science works really really well precisely because it doesn't attempt to answer metaphysical questions. But that also means that if we're going to work on metaphysical questions, like the existence of God, we have to use different methods, and different standards of evidence. So bringing up multiverses I think is just irrelevant. 

As usual, I want to contrast some modern Christian's attempts at science with a more purely metaphysical system. If people are talking about the God of classical theism, then they would never expect the kind of evidence which modern people, accustomed to scientific questions, would find persuasive. In the classical theistic view, God is "is immutable, impassible, transcendent, and entirely self-sufficient. This understanding of God emphasizes divine simplicity, where God's essence and existence are identical, making him fundamentally distinct from all created beings." No material evidence of such a God would be possible. Methodological materialist approaches would not address the issue. 

I do very much agree with you when you say "We have abandoned the God-concept for a number of other reasons, and God is an uneconomical hypothesis to explain either the big bang or the specific characteristics of the universe which actually resulted from it." [emphasis added]

Thinking adults who are atheists, who have considered and rejected the claims made by Christians, are atheists for reasons. Their atheism is not simply a lack, but a considered conclusion, based on what they consider to be standards of evidence. The lack of evidence has been asserted repeatedly on this thread as the reason why one has no belief in God. A thinking adult is an atheist because he concludes that there is no persuasive evidence.

(If some atheists want to argue that they are NOT thinking adults, that they have no standards for evaluating claims, and that their atheism is exactly like that of rocks, lizards, and new-born babies -- simple, trivial lack -- I guess they could do that. But it would not speak very well of them.)

(April 11, 2025 at 8:25 am)Belacqua Wrote: Science, obviously, uses methodological materialism as its foundation, and that is just not the right approach for metaphysical questions. Science works really really well precisely because it doesn't attempt to answer metaphysical questions.

I had to Google "metaphysical questions."  Here is what I found:

"AI Overview
Metaphysics, a branch of philosophy, explores fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the nature of reality, often delving into concepts beyond the scope of empirical science. Here are some examples of metaphysical questions:
What is the nature of reality?
Does the world really exist?
What is the meaning of life?
Do we have free will?
What is consciousness?
Does God exist?
What is the nature of space and time?
What is the relationship between mind and matter?
What is the nature of identity?
What is the nature of change?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Is there an objective morality?
What are the limits of knowledge?
How do symbolic systems (e.g., language) represent the world?"

The bolded questions are, I think, very definitely within the realm of science these days.
The italicized questions are debatably within the realm of science.
That doesn't leave many metaphysical questions which are beyond the limits of science.

I should add that "methodological materialism" is not where science started, but where it ended up because of what it found to be true. Because of the assumed unified nature of truth, anything new we are trying to learn should be consistent with whatever we have already shown to be true. That's why God is not immune from science, for instance.