Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Soberman921]

Deism certainly refutes Christianity since a God that simply set things in motion is very different from the always interfering Christian God. The entire fine tuning argument of which so many Christians are fond makes little sense in arguing for the Christian God because that God wouldn't need a fine tuned universe to create life. He's capable of creating life under any circumstances.

[R00tKiT]

Proving deism disproves theism by default, they're directly contradictory claims.

I already explained what I mean by deism: belief in some form of supreme power that might or might no be a personal God as in classical theism. In this sense, they're not contradictory.

If you wanna go all thomas jefferson on us, by all means have at it...

I am going to ask you, again, to shut it. You have the very dishonest habit of not conceding any point, then deflecting the focus on some other issue about my beliefs. If you don't have an answer to what's above about causality, then say, humbly, that causality is universally true in all areas of physics, only then we can move on to discuss beliefs.

Deism certainly refutes Christianity since a God that simply set things in motion is very different from the always interfering Christian God. The entire fine tuning argument of which so many Christians are fond makes little sense in arguing for the Christian God because that God wouldn't need a fine tuned universe to create life. He's capable of creating life under any circumstances.

It's not really about God "needing" to fine-tune a universe. It's about how we can prove his existence based on the observable world.

---

Finally, the notion of causality in your third article is dependent on the existence of natural laws. So, once again, it does not address the fact that ALL causality, such as it exists, is within the universe and a consequence of the natural laws. it does NOT support your claim for causality outside of the universe, nor even the claim of simultaneous causality within the universe.

It does not follow from causality being true inside the universe that it depends on natural laws. Natural laws could simply be the form causality takes inside a spacetime. As I mentioned before, Kant argued that causality is a synthetic a priori,, you can't deduce it from experience. You can't prove that causality is true even within the universe, but you still need it as an assumption to do science. You either accept it as universally true or hypocritically reject it to avoid dealing with the possiblity of a first cause.

[The Grand Nudger]

Proving deism disproves theism by default, they're directly contradictory claims.

I already explained what I mean by deism: belief in some form of supreme power that might or might no be a personal God as in classical theism. In this sense, they're not contradictory.

And in that sense, it's not deism.  You're just taking a shit on all of it, eh?

If you wanna go all thomas jefferson on us, by all means have at it...

I am going to ask you, again, to shut it. You have the very dishonest habit of not conceding any point, then deflecting the focus on some other issue about my beliefs. If you don't have an answer to what's above about causality, then say, humbly, that causality is universally true in all areas of physics, only then we can move on to discuss beliefs.

Isn't it funny that the ummah has been reduced to impotently asking me to shut up rather than threatening me with death?  Neither works, in case you were fantasizing.

I concede points all the time, just not with you, because you don't seem to be able to establish one. That's not a me problem.

It's not really about God "needing" to fine-tune a universe. It's about how we can prove his existence based on the observable world.

How indeed...certainly not by any means you've so far offered.  The only thing left to decide is whether or not it's worth continuing to look for some way you could..or, giving up in complete shame, to bullshit people and insult your god by insisting on things that are manifestly untrue.

I'll repeat my question. Why should a person familiar with physics correct your misapprehensions about physics if no correction would change your position anyway? If, rather than this thing proving your beliefs to be true or at least rational, they don't matter at all, as evidenced by your willingness to continue believing in a thing you predicated on being wrong about a fact even after you've been corrected on that, as a matter of fact?

I appreciate that you don't think that's what you're doing..but you can get why that would be silly, if you were....right? Right......?

[R00tKiT]

Nobody is threatening you with death, lol. If you don't have much substance to add about what physics says on causality, say you don't know, or concede the point.

Am I asking for too much?

[The Grand Nudger]

Not anymore, anyway. That's sort of the point, Kloro. Is it to much to ask that you pick something that might actually be relevant to what you believe? Or that you're consistent in your predicates about what you believe?

It seems like it may be, or at least too much to ask of you. You know islam is right because of x y and z...and if it turns out that x y and z are non factual...fuck it, nevermind, ignore that you ever said that, it's actually a..b...and c...that's how you know. X y and z were never demonstrative if they could prove that the silly djinn you worship is..well...silly....no matter how many times you claimed they were demonstrative when you thought they proved your silly god in error.

Rinse and repeat with a..b...and c..if needs be. Do you think that's an unfair characterization of your faith? Or are you willing to state that you've got god wrong if you got causality wrong?

[R00tKiT]

Why should I defend my beliefs in a thread that is not related to Islam in any way? It's impossible to demonstrate Islam to someone who thinks that somewhere, at some point, things pop into existence from actual nothing, thus violating causality. Even entertaining the possibility of this means that there is no possible argument that can be made to prove anything.  

It's funny to see how far atheists are willing to go to block arguments. 

Hume once said : "A Purpose, an intention, a design strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker".

But I guess we have far worse to deal with these days than careless and stupid thinkers.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're wasting alot of words and time implying that you absolutely will not stop wasting other peoples time on things that even you won't allow to disprove your silly beleifs...even though you loudly proclaim that those same things are required of your beliefs to be true, and can prove them by being true...as opposed to false.

In short, you do not hold a genuine faith. God will probably judge you for this, if god judges people for such things. See you in hell, I guess? A whole lifetime spent being an islamist dick and nothing to show for it. Wish I could say I was surprised...but that is what tends to happen to you guys.

[Nay_Sayer]

Nobody is threatening you with death, lol. If you don't have much substance to add about what physics says on causality, say you don't know, or concede the point.

Am I asking for too much?

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/...e-4586999/

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hume once said : "A Purpose, an intention, a design strikes everywhere even the careless, the most stupid thinker".

Congrats on using people who died long ago as the basis for your nonsense 

---

Nobody is threatening you with death, lol. If you don't have much substance to add about what physics says on causality, say you don't know, or concede the point.

Am I asking for too much?

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/...e-4586999/

https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...th/355961/

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34338691

[R00tKiT]

https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...th/355961/

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34338691

There are no extremist Muslims here, Helios. Maybe you want to post these links elsewhere. It's not our fault that some people misunderstand the Jihad doctrine (you included, perhaps?)

It's clear though that you don't know a lick about Islamic belief. Can you be upfront about that, at least? Tell me Helios, can you cite the five pillars of Islam without looking them up in google, for example? 

You're wasting alot of words and time implying that you absolutely will not stop wasting other peoples time on things that even you won't allow to disprove your silly beleifs...even though you loudly proclaim that those same things are required of your beliefs to be true, and can prove them by being true...as opposed to false.

I am not wasting anything. It's enough for me that I got people to bicker about causality just to avoid its implications. That's what atheism gives you, Nudger, violating the principles of thought and wondering whether one can precede their mother's existence.