Well at least I can usually communicate what I know coherently. Sorry, I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

(April 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Believer: Because the fine-tuning of the universe for life is exponentially more likely on theism than on naturalism, and thus constitutes a strong probabilistic argument for theism. [This does in fact seem to be true]

(April 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(April 17, 2014 at 8:03 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Maybe a topic for another thread, but there is a smidgen of evidence for one of the multiverse theories that explains this fine-tuning.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but there is a simpler and better supported explanation.

Ahh, here it is. http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-universe/

Oh, you might've got the wrong impression. I'm not saying there aren't potential naturalistic explanations for cosmic fine-tuning (otherwise I wouldn't be a naturalist :p), but that such is more likely to occur if theism is true.

If there are naturalistic explanations, then this degree of fine-tuning wasn't in fact that improbable on atheism, thus it shouldn't be "exponentially more likely on theism".
Are you taking into account that a god might have made the world even better than it actually is?

(April 17, 2014 at 9:44 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: However, an even stronger fine-tuning argument can be made that goes beyond just fine-tuning of the universe, and it's probably the best argument for theism I've seen.

This has turned into a general thread for debating (a)theism, so you might as well describe it.

(April 19, 2014 at 9:24 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: There is no distinguishing characteristic between a deity and the belief in any given supernatural entity, other than what attributes the practitioners of that religion attribute to it.

You know what rumpy? You still didn't address me at all. You're going to have to do better than this. Missing what I've said and repeating the same old meaningless guff.

---

(April 19, 2014 at 9:42 pm)coffee Jesus Wrote: Supernatural force? i.e. a God that intervenes?
You believe there is a god that intervenes in such a way that he never leaves behind evidence of his interventions, and at such a low rate that many people never get to see it personally, and with such unclear intentions that every culture has reached different conclusions as to what he wants of us, and lets children starve, be raped, or be murdered despite his powers? Please correct me if I'm wrong. That is what you believe, right?

No I believe that God intervenes and leaves evidence. I believe all humans are aware of him. He let's nature take it's course. Sure. Nothing wrong with that.

(April 21, 2014 at 12:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 19, 2014 at 9:42 pm)coffee Jesus Wrote: Supernatural force? i.e. a God that intervenes?
You believe there is a god that intervenes in such a way that he never leaves behind evidence of his interventions, and at such a low rate that many people never get to see it personally, and with such unclear intentions that every culture has reached different conclusions as to what he wants of us, and lets children starve, be raped, or be murdered despite his powers? Please correct me if I'm wrong. That is what you believe, right?

No I believe that God intervenes and leaves evidence. I believe all humans are aware of him. He let's nature take it's course. Sure. Nothing wrong with that.

Until I'm shown that evidence, I'm going to "give the story a 5% chance of being truthful." -you on page 13

(April 17, 2014 at 5:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And you are shouldering the burden of proof claiming that there could be possible transferable evidence of the supernatural. That's pure illogic right there.

(April 21, 2014 at 12:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No I believe that God intervenes and leaves evidence. I believe all humans are aware of him. He let's nature take it's course. Sure. Nothing wrong with that.

Two unsupported claims, including that every human from the dawn of man were aware of one specific deity.

I suppose Animism, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism, Hellenism, the Roman Pantheon, Buddhism, Jainism, the and Islam were all just "made up" because people were "mad at" the "one true God" they were aware existed.

(April 11, 2014 at 1:25 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: And all the people who say they have evidence won't show their work. What's up with that?

(April 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: I suppose Animism, Shinto, Taoism, Hinduism, Hellenism, the Roman Pantheon, Buddhism, Jainism, the and Islam were all just "made up" because people were "mad at" the "one true God" they were aware existed.

Indeed.

I'm assuming that by "God" and "him", he means Yahweh.

It's valid to imagine that those god ideas were somehow based on God, whom fr0d0 accepts to exist, but to say that a hindu is aware of God because Vishnu is based on God would be analogous to saying that you're aware of hydrogen bonds because you're aware of water.

It's the same annoying substitution of ontological arguments. "God" suddenly becomes a hot-swappable concept for your particular deity.

"Well, everyone knows God exists" is about as compelling as "Well, everyone knows unicorns exist, or "Well, everyone knows God exists but Unicorns don't exist."

No. It's just an unsupported assertion that isn't backed up, because nobody is able to back it up.

So people rely on faith, or claiming there is evidence, and then claiming you have to believe before you can even discern the evidence.

I'm sure people who believe in Unicorns believe they have rational reasons for their beliefs, too.

(April 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: It's the same annoying substitution of ontological arguments. "God" suddenly becomes a hot-swappable concept for your particular deity.

We should spread the phrases "the real god" or "the real deity".

the real god - A god that is assumed to exist, but is not defined as any religion's particular god. *usually assumed to be the only real god
For example:

(April 21, 2014 at 12:30 am)a fixed quote from fr0d0... Wrote: No I believe that God intervenes and leaves evidence. I believe all humans are aware of the real god whom I believe to be God. God let's nature take it's course. Sure. Nothing wrong with that.

changes made to original quotation

I think "God" is often used this way, but confusion arises because a lot of Christians call their god "God" to avoid using his real names.

(April 21, 2014 at 12:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No I believe that God intervenes and leaves evidence. I believe all humans are aware of him. He let's nature take it's course. Sure. Nothing wrong with that.

Except for the contradictory nature of the two bolded parts, I guess.

(April 21, 2014 at 10:57 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote: Until I'm shown that evidence, I'm going to "give the story a 5% chance of being truthful." -you on page 13

Indeed. I don't expect anyone to believe anything without evidence.

---

(April 21, 2014 at 12:24 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Two unsupported claims, including that every human from the dawn of man were aware of one specific deity.

In your imagination only

---

(April 21, 2014 at 1:01 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: .

I'm assuming that by "God" and "him", he means Yahweh.

It's valid to imagine that those god ideas were somehow based on God, whom fr0d0 accepts to exist, but to say that a hindu is aware of God because Vishnu is based on God would be analogous to saying that you're aware of hydrogen bonds because you're aware of water.

When I'm talking about the God I believe in I'm usually specific. All religious endeavours are the same subject to me. The divisions that you imagine are not mine.