I will prove to you that God exists

[The Architect Of Fate]

Invocations of the supernatural are magic 

the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

"suddenly, as if by magic, the doors start to open"

[The Architect Of Fate]

I repeat all attempts at using probability are incredulity all founded on ignorance or a lack of imagination

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Do you see yourself as unnatural in some way?  Does evolution, for example, not explain you? You blew past that moment again Drew - fucked up before you got here.

[Sheldon]

Drew: 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.

Drew: The entire dialog is a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 

No it absolutely is not you clown, what a preposterously stupid claim, stop trying to bluff, and go and learn what the fallacy is, and why it applies to you constantly trying to shift your burden of proof here. You keep repeating the fallacy, because you obviously don't understand that you're using it, or what this means. 

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.

I think anyone who understands the arguments here, will have a fair idea of the level of patience I have used, to indulge your asinine unevidenced superstitious and irrational guff, but if you want to pretend otherwise, it's no more compelling than the rest of your spiel. It's also easier for you to project than to actually learn why your argument is so poor. As if amply evidenced here of course, by you refusing to address your previous fallacy, and instead resorting to ad hominem fallacy. 

Isaac Newton wasn't wrong about alchemy.

Sigh, the comparison was to illustrate an appeal to authority fallacy, and yet again you have failed to understand why it is fallacious. I am disinclined to keep wasting my time explaining. 

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?

I have made no such claims, those are both straw man fallacies, you have evaded my question yet again by resorting to irrational responses. Well done champ. 

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 think we can add hubris to the word atheist, as you clearly understand neither. 

 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.

A long winded way of accepting my point, without actually saying so, while entirely evading the question attached, or the inference for your assertion I was addressing, and with usual sprinkling of sententious petulance, again...well done. As I said, and you ignored, when you asked about the multiverse hypothesis, I don't care what anyone's reasons are for believing it, only what the methods of science can and has validated. It is you who keeps bringing this entirely natural phenomenon up, as if it is scientific evidence for your superstitious beliefs ffs. 

Sheldon: 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. 

Drew: The fallacy is circular reasoning.

Is it fuck, circular reasoning fallacies assume their conclusion in their opening premises, it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy like the one you used. Go and learn what common logical fallacies are, and what they mean, and stop trying to bluff. 

 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?

What does this latest hypothetical rabbit hole, have to do with your fallacious use of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy? 

Sheldon: Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over. 

Drew: Doesn't mean there is. 

Sigh, ffs, I never claim it did, so you have now leaped to whataboutism, using another straw man fallacy, whilst yet again failing to understand why your original argument is based on an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 
Lets try big letters again then:
We don't know how the universe came to exist beyond the point of the big bang, we don't know how life emerged. You are insisting it required a deity creator, using supernatural powers. When asked if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for the deity, or those powers, or that either is possible, you keep sifting your burden of proof, using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, by asking me to offer an alternative explanation to your claim. Ipso facto, your argument for a creator deity is irrational, and poorly reasoned. 

[Sheldon]

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.

That's a lie, I have explained countless times why your attempts to reverse your burden of proof, is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and this claim about the posts of others is again fallacious it is called whataboutism, it is a form of the tu quoque fallacy. Not only is your accusation unevidenced, and therefore groundless, even were it true, your argument would remain fallacious, this illustrates clearly you have no understanding of what this means, or it's importance, and this even after I have explained it to you several times. 

The one they don't mention is the fallafetish fallacy. The obsession with finding so called fallacies. 

I have not mentioned it as it has not been used that I have seen. I suspect you have no more grasp of when and why this fallacy applies than any other, but you seem utterly unable / unwilling to grasp that disbelief of your claim, need not, and in my case certainly does not, involve a contrary claim, this is also the error in reasoning you have used to produce countless straw man fallacies, to misrepresent what I and others have said. 
FYI, I have no idea what relevance that list has to your fallacious argument, or your lack of integrity in acknowledging or addressing this fact, or what it means for your argument, though we can I suspect infer from this post and your referencing a fallafetish fallacy, that you still don't understand this, even though I have explained several times what it means.

[Sheldon]

@Sheldon


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. 

No it really isn't, you have claimed a deity created the universe, can you offer any explanation or objective evidence as to how:

1. That deity exists is possible?
2. Possesses the supernatural powers required? 
3. Those powers work, and are used? 

If you can't you are demonstrably appealing to magic. This is your cue to use yet another straw man, to insist I evidence how the universe came to exist from only natural phenomena, despite me explaining each and every time, that I have made no such claim. 

Would it be more magical for a laptop to come together and assemble itself minus any plan or intent to do so? 

Sigh, false equivalence fallacy, laptops are manmade, we already know they're designed and created, as we have overwhelming objective evidence to support this. You have use a version of Paley's watch maker fallacy. 

You won't answer the question but its obvious.

Another lie, I have answered it, and every version of the fallacy you have offered previously, the answer is the same each time, you ingore it each time. 

It would be far more magical and unexpected if a laptop was caused by some unheard of natural process.

No idea what "far more magical" means, but this is yet another straw man fallacy, as no here has remotely claimed or implied this, laptops are not natural, they don't appear randomly in nature, it is an objective fact they are manmade and designed. 

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.

Begging the question fallacy, and so a circular reasoning fallacy. Also, it is an objective fact that natural phenomena exist, are causal, and possible, even if we don't understand what they might be, or how they worked in a particular instance. So whilst I can't claim the universe came about naturally, I can say they're more plausible than your claim for a creator deity using supernatural powers, as you're clearly violating Occam's razor by adding an deity, using inexplicable supernatural powers, neither of which you can demonstrate exist, or are even possible. Oh and you certainly have ignored that fact at every turn, so stop lying and projecting your dishonesty where it does not belong. 

The reason atheists are such a minority is because you sell a fish story few believe.

Wtf is a "fish" story? That comedic idiocy aside, you are of course using an argumentum ad populum fallacy, irrational to the last, and not even dimply aware of that fact, or what it means, it would seem.

[Sheldon]

The reason atheists are such a minority is because you sell a fish story few believe.

The actual reason is most people are not rational in their beliefs

I once debated a creationist who insisted he could disprove evolution, I shan't name him, as he has popped up here years later. He insisted "most people think rationally". I asked him why if that were true, we bothered creating a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to quickly identify and discard irrational arguments. In the end I had to explain I was talking about logic, the silence was almost painful.

[Sheldon]

Poor Drew comparing man made objects to the universe thus engaging in an false analogy

Not for the first time either, and despite the false equivalence fallacy being explained. He's replaced Paley's shiny pocket watch with a laptop, but failed to realise why the argument is fallacious.

[Sheldon]

Drew: Its questionable who is invoking magic. 

Magic

noun
1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

There is nothing mysterious about natural phenomena, since they are ubiquitous in our understanding of reality, they are either understood or not, they are not mysterious, and they are the antithesis of supernatural. 

You may want to get that bullet wound in your foot looked at. 

Drew: Has science validated your claim we owe the existence to non-God explanations? 

Please quote me anywhere claiming that "the universe came from non-god explanations", let alone that science had validated this? 

Not believing a claim, and making a contrary claim are not the same thing. 

Drew: What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces

I neither have nor need one, since I have never claimed to know this. I have only expressed incredulity at your claims the universe required a deity creator, and supernatural forces, as they are unsupported by objective evidence, or rational argument. 

Drew: I've had plenty claim erroneously that multiverse theory has nothing to do with the fine-tuning of the universe. 

No, you have had plenty of people object when you falsely claim multiverse hypothesis supports your claim that the universe was fine tuned by a deity using supernatural forces, which is not the same at all, as the entirely natural phenomena described by the scientific term "fine tuning", which is simply a metaphor, just as the big bang is a metaphor.  

Drew: What's wrong with using sources to back up what I'm saying.

Nothing, except when you're misrepresenting their position, or making a fallacious appeal to authority, which you have done several times, and failed to understand, even after it has been pointed out. For example you claimed the universe is fine tuned, (not the scientific term, but the creationist belief), by a deity, when this was challenged you cited the multiverse hypothesis for support, when this was challenged, you produced a list of names, among which were elite scientists who are also prominent and outspoken atheists. 
Lets make this as simple as I possibly can: 
There is no scientific evidence for any deity, or anything supernatural, or that either is possible. 

Drew: I meant that unlike atheists who deny there is any evidence our universe was intentionally caused I don't deny there is evidence to support belief in naturalism. 

Clearly there is no scientific evidence the universe was intentionally caused, the rate of atheism among elite scientists is ample evidence to justify such an inference. However, there is also no objective evidence any deity exists or is possible, and you yourself have failed to offer any, or even any rational argument to support your claims. Parenthetically, the natural physical material universe, and entirely natural phenomena exist as an objective fact. 

If a doctor prescribes antibiotics, and you pray over an infection, then when the infection clears up, which is the more plausible explanation, that the antibiotics behaved exactly as we know they will, or that an inexplicable and mysterious miracle (magic) occurred? We have overwhelming and conclusive objective evidence that the former is possible, and all we have for the second are argumentum ad ignorantiam, and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. 

You are funny, fair play. 

It is an objective fact that natural phenomena exist, ipso facto they are possible.  

Now, objectively demonstrate that the supernatural exists, or is possible? Something, anything more than endless fallacious arguments.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It would be far more magical and unexpected if a laptop was caused by some unheard of natural process.

This is giving Klor vibes. Next he will disingenuously pretend that laptops are not man made and can't observe them being made  and pretend he's "parodying" Atheists so he doesn't have to provide evidence of design or he might go full Klor and insist nonesense other minds and external reality as if one couldn't be agnostic about those things .....