Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh it's simple alright. But, just because you say it "must" be true, doesn't get us any closer to establishing whether or not you are right. What you've offered is an intellectual sink-hole. The question remains.

The question remains unanswered for the naturalist yes, but not the Christian theist. This is due to an inherent flaw in naturalism however.

I've already told you, I don't know. And it's irrelevant with regards to establishing the validity of your claim.

It’s not irrelevant to my claim at all, you cannot account for that which I can; and at the very same time you believe in the reality of that which only I can account for. It’s epistemological theft.

I can't account for descriptive laws anymore than you can account for God.

That is a category error; laws are contingent while God is by definition a non-contingent being.

You've swapped one incomplete worldview for another, and are content in using God as your pacifier for your lack of knowledge. It seems a bit more honest to admit that you don't know, rather than go on pleading for exceptions for the very thing you're trying to avoid, and pretend to know things that you clearly do not. You're human, get used to being ignorant, it comes with the territory. You don't have all the answers, and insisting that you're right without evidence doesn't change my mind about you. Not that you are trying or care. But, then why would you continue this conversation if you didn't?

Why do you engage in such intellectual laziness? Christian theism assumes the existence of Yahweh, and Yahweh’s existence can account for numerous realities that you cannot account for. The real crux of the matter is that you still believe in the reality of all that which you cannot account for (which means you accept them upon blind faith). The irony is that your faith positions require that my conceptual scheme be true. We are both assuming Christian theism is true-you implicitly, me explicitly.

You can stop dishonestly misrepresenting my metaphorical position anytime you like, Stat.

I did no such thing.

Didn't you see me appeal to magic? I noticed you cut that part of my (fucking fictional by the way) response out. Are you saying there's absolutely no possibility in the future that technology exists that can alter physical laws?

That’s correct.

Except that, regardless of whether position A can currently account for B, B still demonstrably exists. You're shifting terms; even in the sentence you're responding to, it's not that B cannot exist if A is true, but that B isn't currently explained under the premises of A. Would you mind... you know, telling the truth, next time?

There you go being irrational again. Arguing that there is a manner in which “B” can be accounted for consistently by “Position A” but we just have not found it yet is a fallacious argument from ignorance. Couple that with the fact that Position B (a position you vehemently reject) can consistently account for “B” and you have now engaged in adhering to Position A solely upon blind faith.

Yes, it did. I just appealed to the future, in the same way you appeal to magic when you say god did it. We both provided exactly the same level of information and evidence, the difference is that while I readily accept that both explanations are fictional, you seem to be taking mine as true, and then editing out large swathes of what I said as though to hide answers I've already given.

No because your attempt at accounting for natural laws was irrational. It committed a category (material/immaterial) error and invoked logical contradictions by asserting that natural laws existed prior to their creation. Christian theism rationally accounts for natural laws.

Then my time travel scenario, where I go to whatever future I need to to get whatever tech I need to do what I need to do, is a problem for you.

Nope, because it is illogical.

Because "special creation" and "magic" are two different things.

They are.

If you really want to go into presuppositionalism with me, I'll happily rip the entire thing to goddamn shreds right here where everyone can see, but please do present the entire argument, and not just the bland assertion, hit and run version of it. It's tiresome.

I’ve already given you enough to work with; get to it.

According to thinking beings who aren't happy stopping at "must have been magic man!"

Rationality is not determined by what people think; do you have anything better?

According to rationality: if you're just going to assert a cause and think that's enough, then not only is my assertion also viable, but you're also exhibiting your special pleading by demanding evidence for my claim and picking holes, but not doing the same for your own.

Where did I demand evidence for your claim? I simply pointed out that it was illogical-and that is all that I needed to do.

Not if, as I think the question implies, one is looking for the mechanism behind hotdog manufacture. If I wanted to know your answer, the correct question would be "who makes hotdogs?" And even then, your answer would be severely lacking in information, given that you could have answered with a list of hotdog brands, too.

Here is your logic using your same analogy…

A: “Where do hotdogs come from?”
B: “People make them.”
A: “How do people make them?”
B: “I do not know; I have never been to the plant.”
A: “Hah! Since you cannot tell me how hotdogs are made, they therefore were not made by people but have a purely unguided and unintelligent explanation!”
B: “Huh?”

This just goes to show what I'm saying: you're happy with an answer that explains nothing, so long as it matches what you already believe.

No, I am perfectly content with the correct answer. God created the laws of nature.

And yet you're the one who envisions a world where every natural law can be suspended whenever a space wizard and his wizard goat archrival deems fit...

A space wizard? I think you are getting your conversations confused. I am somewhat amused that you cannot see the flaw in your own position. You have no idea where the laws of nature came from or what is governing them but you are sure that they have never been different in the past nor will they ever be different in the future. How absurd is that? At least I have a reason for believing they can change in very isolated instances but will generally remain regular; you have no reason for believing they even exist in the first place let alone that they have and will remain regular.

I already told you: I time traveled.

So you cannot do it rationally? That’s all I needed to know.

Or hell, let's make another explanation to go for an unguided universe: Floontium, the building block, unguided material at the core of existence, randomly made it that way. Bam.

What ensures that natural laws remain that way throughout time? What is Floontrium made of? You said it was material.

Unsurprisingly, you theists decide to opt for arguments from ignorance, rather than addressing my argument, which is that such things are useless here. You doubled down in the most unaware way possible.

You’re the one invoking arguments from ignorance. “I do not know where laws of nature come from but I know that there is a natural explanation that we just have not found yet for them.” You’re caught in a dilemma, you either have to postulate an explanation for the laws of nature that is really only Yahweh by a different name, or you have to admit that the existence of natural immaterial laws is utterly incompatible with your view of reality and relinquish appealing to them (thus rendering all science impossible).