RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 18, 2019 at 11:01 am
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2019 at 11:07 am by Simon Moon.)
(March 18, 2019 at 7:57 am)Catharsis Wrote: Why do you think reasoned disbelief for Bigfoot is the same as for the creator?
Neither has demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the claims. On that basis, they are both in the same set; the set of all unsupported claims.
Quote:When it comes to the creator there is no reasoned disbelief.
You have the burden of proof, time to start supporting your claim that there is no reasoned disbelief. Until you support your claim that disbelief in a creator god is unreasoned, all you have is an unwarranted claim.
I have heard and studied ALL the evidence and 'logical' arguments for the existence of gods, none of them hold up to scrutiny. They are all fallacious.
Cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, ontological arguments, presuppositional arguments all are fallacious.
(March 18, 2019 at 10:36 am)Catharsis Wrote:(March 18, 2019 at 10:33 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Show your work or that's just another unsupported assertion. If you've managed to do what no theologian before you has ever done, and produced an argument for the existence of a creator deity with sound premises and no fallacies that stands up to scrutiny. I'd really love to see it.
Everything has a beginning and an end here.
A beginning would suggest a creator.
creator
/kriːˈeɪtə/
noun
noun: creator; plural noun: creators
a person or thing that brings something into existence.
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. That is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. "I can't think of any other way the universe could have started, therefore it must be a god". When it is possible to substitute the word "magic" in place of your god, and your explanation gains or loses no explanatory power, you have not explained anything.
You can't point at a result and then claim a cause. You have to demonstrate the cause.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
