How does that relate, in your mind, to the post you quoted?  Was this belgian scrutinizing something?  Or did you ctrl-f until you saw the word "catholic" and thought.."oh, what the hell, this works". 

Okay.

That covers page one...the first 50 responses as I have my forum software configured.

I thank you all, and I will continue responding to you later.

-the shit and run (oops, wrong thread) 

9 pages on an apologist's clear misunderstanding of atheism and logical fallacies?

Yup, apologistics alright.

(June 14, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

What point are you trying to make here? That Lemaître was right because he was Catholic? Sir Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. And?

(June 14, 2015 at 11:09 am)Randy Carson Wrote: For the atheist, just getting to the possibility that God even exists is a major undertaking. The rest gets easier after that.

We mostly come from the religious side. So you have that upside down. Atheism was the undertaking.

But I give you one thing. The rest was easier after that.

(June 14, 2015 at 11:36 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

You would certainly object if it were done to you.

What is it about "do unto others..." that you have a problem with? Be specific ... and do it in confessional too.

(June 14, 2015 at 11:36 am)Randy Carson Wrote: The challenge for me, Parkers, is that when I post an article such as the one in the OP, someone is bound to take exception to it based upon his or her own position vis-a-vis the theist-agnostic-atheist spectrum.

You're speaking of YOUR position. Great. In a one-on-one conversation, I would tailor my remarks to what you believe just as I would when speaking of infant baptism with a Baptist or a Methodist (since they come down on different sides of that doctrinal dispute).

I posted the OP because a few members of this forum ROUTINELY cite the GotG objection to virtually anything I post.

If this is not you, then you can ignore this thread.

The GotG objection is valid so long as you practice it, and it doesn't matter what the position is of the person objecting to it.

The name of that fallacy is tu quoque. You need to stop practicing that one, too.

[insert smiley-as-nonreply here]

Also, if someone objects based on their own position, perhaps you should give thought to not treating all atheists as a lump of people who march in lockstep? Because when you post in broad generalities, that is what you're doing, just as when an atheist posts shit like "Xians r teh stoopidz!!1!"

(June 14, 2015 at 11:45 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 14, 2015 at 10:29 am)Chad32 Wrote: Religion makes scrutiny a death worthy crime.

It does, huh?

Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître; (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

Well, he certainly didn't scrutinize Catholic doctrine, now did he? That would be a career-changer ... but not quite so beneficent, I think you'd agree.

You deliberately ignored the point for the sake of rhetoric.  Quit being disingenuous.

(June 14, 2015 at 2:11 am)TRJF Wrote:

(June 13, 2015 at 7:31 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If God did this, then surely we would know he existed, right? Well, why wouldn’t this kind of evidence also be subject to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection? Just because we don’t know how a giant man can appear in the sky doesn’t mean there is no natural explanation for him. Maybe aliens or time-travelers are at work, deceiving us?

Even “low-key” evidence is vulnerable to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection. Some atheists say that if Christian preachers could heal amputated limbs, that would convince them God existed. But once again, aren’t we just taking a gap in our knowledge (“I don’t know how these limbs are being healed”) and filling it with, “Therefore, God did it?”

Next, let's take this premise:  For any "event" X, either:

1. X is explainable with our current scientific knowledge (that is, explainable by purely natural processes that we are aware of).
2. X is not currently explainable with our current scientific knowledge, but is actually a natural, repeatable thing that obeys the laws of the universe (that is, X comports with a scientific, materialistic worldview, but we aren't currently aware of it).
3. X is not currently explainable with our current scientific knowledge, and that's because it's actually a miracle (that is, no consistent, complete scientific framework could account for X).

Events in category 1 aren't evidence for god.
Events that aren't in category 1 are either in category 2 or 3, but by definition we don't know which until scientific knowledge catches up.

Old joke, but hear me out.

Quote:A religious man is on top of a roof during a great flood, and he prays asking God to save him.

Soon, a man comes by in a boat and shouts above the storm, "Get in, get in!" The religious man replies, "No, I have faith in God; He will grant me a miracle."

The water continues to rise, and another boat comes by. Again, the religious man responds that he has faith in God and that God will give him a miracle.

As the water is about to sweep him away, a helicopter arrives, a ladder is lowered, and the crew motions for the man climb aboard.

With water in his mouth, the man sputters that he trusts in God and turns down the request for help. Moments later he is swept to his death by the raging waters.

When the man arrives at the gates of heaven, he says to Peter, "I thought God would grant me a miracle." Peter chuckles and responds, "I don't know what you're complaining about. We sent you two boats and a helicopter."

More seriously, what prevents God from using the natural explainable phenomena of this world in ways that are inexplicable for their timing and efficacy?

Is it mere chance that a cardiologist is standing on a street corner waiting for a taxi at the precise moment that a jogger collapses from a heart attack at his feet? And what if it was learned later that the cardiologist NORMALLY drives to work every day instead of taking a taxi? Just a coincidence? What if it is learned that the cardiologist, who is a Christian, heard God tell him to take a taxi that morning instead of driving even though God didn't say why? The doctor simply obeyed and ended up saving the man's life because of his obedience. Is that just a coincidence, too?

At what point does the chain of coincidences begin to exceed the boundary of mere chance?

Here is a famous example (I took this account from Wikipedia):

Quote:In April 1912 (Fr. Francis Browne] received a present from his uncle: a ticket for the maiden voyage of RMS Titanic from Southampton, England to Queenstown, Ireland, via Cherbourg, France. He traveled to Southampton via Liverpool and London, boarding the Titanic on the afternoon of 10 April 1912. He was booked in cabin no. A37 on the Promenade Deck. Browne took dozens of photographs of life aboard Titanic on that day and the next morning; he shot pictures of the gymnasium, the Marconi room, the first-class dining saloon, his own cabin, and of passengers enjoying walks on the Promenade and Boat decks. He captured the last known images of many crew and passengers, including Captain Edward J. Smith, gymnasium manager T.W. McCawley, engineer William Parr, Major Archibald Butt, and numerous third-class passengers whose names are unknown.

During his voyage on the Titanic, Browne was befriended by an American millionaire couple who were seated at his table in the liner's first-class dining saloon. They offered to pay his way to New York and back in return for Browne spending the voyage to New York in their company. Browne telegraphed his superior requesting permission, but the reply was an unambiguous "GET OFF THAT SHIP – PROVINCIAL".

Browne left the Titanic when she docked in Queenstown, Ireland and returned to Dublin to continue his theological studies. When the news of the ship's sinking reached him, he realised that his photos would be of great interest, and he negotiated their sale to various newspapers and news cartels. They appeared in publications around the world. Browne retained the negatives. His most famous album has been described as the Titanic Album of Father Browne.

Is this just another coincidence, TRJF? Maybe. Or can God arrange things in such a manner as to accomplish His plans without needing to violate the laws of space and time on a daily basis?

If so, then He can save the really big, category 3 magic for special occasions.

Too bad your god didn't save Fr. Thomas Byles or Fr. Joseph Peruschitz. Guess they weren't holy enough.

All of this "when does coincidence become miraculous" stuff is nonsense. It's a psychological thing where people try to layer meaning on top of the meaningless. It's called Apophenia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia