RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 18, 2018 at 5:08 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2018 at 6:35 pm by LadyForCamus.)
Steve wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants god to be unexplainable and unknowable when it suits his case; i.e. when someone asks him what god is made of and how he acts, with reference to known laws of physics. But, when he needs the universe to be caused by something separate from it in order to make his case, suddenly we can know all sorts of things about reality beyond our locality.
See, this is what happens when theists start at their conclusion and reason backwards. When Steve mentions, ‘what might be outside of our universe’ with regard to the KCA, we already know he is talking about god. Put simply; he’s equivocating. Theists pretend KCA is an inductive argument which uses probable truths about the nature of reality to reach a conclusion that god exists. Quite the opposite, in fact:
They start with: “what features of reality would need to be true in order to reach our conclusion that god is responsible for it?” And then, “can we make a case for the logical possibility of these features?”
Maybe you can, but you certainly can’t make a case for the probability of them; not without actual data. And not after you’ve clearly stated that the features of GOD, aka, ‘what lies beyond our universe’, are categorically separate, and unknowable. I don’t see any way around the composition fallacy, so why bother going further than that?
See, this is what happens when theists start at their conclusion and reason backwards. When Steve mentions, ‘what might be outside of our universe’ with regard to the KCA, we already know he is talking about god. Put simply; he’s equivocating. Theists pretend KCA is an inductive argument which uses probable truths about the nature of reality to reach a conclusion that god exists. Quite the opposite, in fact:
They start with: “what features of reality would need to be true in order to reach our conclusion that god is responsible for it?” And then, “can we make a case for the logical possibility of these features?”
Maybe you can, but you certainly can’t make a case for the probability of them; not without actual data. And not after you’ve clearly stated that the features of GOD, aka, ‘what lies beyond our universe’, are categorically separate, and unknowable. I don’t see any way around the composition fallacy, so why bother going further than that?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
