Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[Esquilax]

So you are conceding that natural laws require a creator? They cannot arise through purely natural unintelligent means? I do not believe this game is going as you initially planned because it is only proving my point (unless of course that is what you were trying to do).

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

Sure it is if it is done in a logically consistent manner; you did not account for natural laws because you committed a category error which means your attempt at accounting for such laws was irrational. No such category error exists within the Christian conceptual scheme.

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?

Yes it does, if position A asserts B and B is true but B cannot exist if position A is true then position A is false.

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?

It did not account for natural laws though, that is the point.

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.

Interesting, isn't it?

It is a problem for everyone else.

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.

I did not say anything about magic.

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

You cannot even account for the notion of evidence if God did not exist. That is the entire point, you are assuming Christian theism is true by questioning Christian theism; your position is completely irrational.

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.

According to whom?

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

According to whom?

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.

That’s a fallacious analogy. “Where do hotdogs come from?” “People make them.”- is a perfectly legitimate answer.

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.

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.

All worldviews require axioms; that’s basic epistemology. The only difference between you and me is that my presuppositions make sense of reality while yours contradict it.

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...

I will ask again, how can you make sense of immaterial natural laws in a purely material and unguided Universe?

I already told you: I time traveled.

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Floontium, the building block, unguided material at the core of existence, randomly made it that way. Bam.

The unguided guider? And how is that any different from the uncaused cause that Aristotle, among others, identify with God? It seems to me that by trying to present a silly example you have unwittingly confirmed SW's position.

[GodsRevolt]

I cannot prove unequivocally that God exists.

So, now what?

Stop trying to legislate laws based on your religion

THis is a misunderstanding of the democratic process.

and stop buttfucking alter boys.

This is either an unfair grouping or the misconception that priests are the only ons that have ever made extremely grievous bad decisions.

Stop trying to make us live our lives based on an ideology that you cannot prove to be good and true.

Make you?

Maybe this is paranoia? I never tried to make you do anything.

Or maybe I am just telling you that in hopes that the drugs I slipped you last night are starting to kick in and you'll forget about that time I was holding that gun to your head making your feed the hungry and defend weak.

Or maybe I am telling you THAT because . . . but I shouldn't say.

[Esquilax]

The unguided guider? And how is that any different from the uncaused cause that Aristotle, among others, identify with God? It seems to me that by trying to present a silly example you have unwittingly confirmed SW's position.

Okay, it is seriously weirding me out now, how you theists keep taking a position I have literally admitted is false, and spinning it as if I've revealed some core truth about the universe and my beliefs on it. How much more clearly can I put it? I think that explanation is bullshit!

Is it because you can't address the point I'm actually making, which is that made up things account for the state of being for the universe too, and that being able to account for things says nothing about the truth? Or is it that rhetorical flourishes are beyond you all? Seriously, why are you doing this?

[pocaracas]

You claim that religious people are deceived about whether a god . So you are pretty sure that there is no God . You're pretty sure because you have conclusive evidences can not be denied by anyone .

It's so much better to argue against a pretty face... even if that avatar isn't you!

First point: religious people have no evidence of what it is that they believe. At most, they have some feelings which they interpret as some sort of godly operations or whatnot... beauty, love, order... stuff like that.

Lack of evidence raises a red flag.
The repetition of words as "truth", and "trust" and "believe" in this context sound a few alarms in the "I'm being conned" department....
So this leads to us being pretty sure that all gods that are believed in by humans are made up... not 100% sure, but pretty damn close.

Look at the obvious geographical distribution of religions (discount for long range travel available since the 1500s). That alone should give you pause to think about how an idea appeared at one location and spread in that region. A similar idea appeared in another location and spread in that other region.... it's possible that the two ideas have some link in the form of... perhaps, trade... after all, the silk road is old...very old.
Geographical localization of a particular set deities and modes of worship of those deities support the notion that people have been spreading these ideas. PEOPLE!

Geographical localization made me remember another of my favorites... multiple religions, multiple interpretations of the divine, multiple gods...
Either only one is correct.... or none.
If one of them is correct, then which one? You'll say it's yours. Each denomination of christians will say it's theirs. Jews will say it's theirs. Each sect of Hindus will say it's theirs. Would we ask this 3 thousand years ago, in Egypt, they'd say it's theirs.... etc.etc.etc.
What's happening, here? How can so many people be so convinced about something that is patently wrong?


The unavailability of evidence for any deity, even today, when we have so many tools at our disposal, supports the idea that the original concept was man-made.
The present-day abundance of fictional writing, books, movies, series, cartoons, etc... suggests that mankind is very well capable of having made up such a concept.

On top of that... Why do I have to believe in a particular god for that god to manifest itself within me... in my mind... in my gut feeling...?
Looks like there's some circularity going on there: if I believe it, then I feel it... I feel it, then I confirm the belief...
We also know that our minds are tricked oh so easily... and we can trick ourselves....

So, I refuse to believe, given the obvious pitfalls that such a position entails afterwards.... and given that it all smells (reeks is more like it) like man-made fiction.

Sure, it can make you feel better.... but not me. I refuse the deception... actually, I think I'm unable to accept it, even if I wanted it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...the point I'm actually making, which is that made up things account for the state of being for the universe too,...

The point is that you cannot make-up something plausible that doesn't tacitly invoke the very principles to which you object.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

...the point I'm actually making, which is that made up things account for the state of being for the universe too,...

The point is that you cannot make-up something plausible that doesn't tacitly invoke the very principles to which you object.

I think the point was that he made up something equally implausible

[Esquilax]

The point is that you cannot make-up something plausible that doesn't tacitly invoke the very principles to which you object.

No Chad, the point is that whether I can make up a plausible unguided process or not does not add to the credibility of a created process of any stripe, nor does it testify to the reality of the situation in any way.

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.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You are immune to deception if you know your religion and doctrine well. Obviously only the ignorant are open to deception.

[The Reality Salesman01]

...the point I'm actually making, which is that made up things account for the state of being for the universe too,...

The point is that you cannot make-up something plausible that doesn't tacitly invoke the very principles to which you object.

Wow...Yes. That IS the point. Does this mean you guys will stop doing it?