Theists, are you immune to being decieved?

[houseofcantor]

MindForgedManacle is completely right; your objection can be raised against anyone’s view of reality. It’s taken several forms in the history of philosophy such as Descartes' Demon and the Brain in the Vat. You claim that you are immune to such an objection because you are willing to alter your beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. What about your belief that your senses accurately perceive reality? Or your belief that the exterior Universe is knowable? If you were delusional or being deceived then you cannot demonstrate that these two claims are indeed true without invoking circularity (these two beliefs do make more sense in light of theism however). It is an interesting subject to ponder, but as far as the debate on theism it is irrelevant.

Nice dodge.

Came to the conclusion a ways back that it is not possible for the self to know that the self is not delusional entirely through naive philosophy.

However I find it relevant to theism as self-exploration is often lacking in that group.

[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).

[Esquilax]

I did no such thing.

When you keep saying I've admitted that natural laws require a creator, when the entire time I've made no bones about how completely made up my creator scenario was, and that the point I was making was something else entirely, then yes, you are misrepresenting my position.

That’s correct.

I just wanted you to admit it before I called that on the huge argument from ignorance you just committed. How the hell would you know what is and isn't available in the future?

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.

Quite the opposite: the argument from ignorance goes "I don't know X, therefore X cannot be true." If I'd said that since Position A hasn't got an answer for B yet, it could never have an answer for B (which seems to be your position) then I would be guilty of an argument from ignorance. Saying that Position A hasn't yet accounted for B, but may do so in future, is specifically avoiding the argument from ignorance.

I swear, every single argument you make is like a complete inversion of reality or logic.

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.

And as I've mentioned like seven times now, and this was the point of my initial time travel argument that you've been fleeing from at top speed, making shit up to account for something doesn't say anything about its veracity. All you've done is clung to a story of magic that you think explains everything, all the while giving absolutely no mechanism and therefore explaining nothing, and you think that gives your position more credibility: until you can demonstrate that your position is correct, however much it accounts for anything means nothing, because there are dozens of fictional answers that could do the same thing.

Meanwhile, over here, I'm keeping an open mind and waiting for the evidence to come in. You know, the rational view? And yet my position, where I only believe things that are demonstrable, is somehow one that requires blind faith, while yours, where you go for the answer that you want to believe, regardless of evidence, doesn't?

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.

Except that I answered that by appealing to the future again, and the only response you had was to categorically deny that the technology I require could exist in the future, which is something you can't possibly know. So, aside from a by fiat assertion, you've offered no counter that actually shows the irrationality of my position.

Equally, I could just say that your god is irrational because magic isn't real, but unlike you I recognize that simply asserting bullshit that I want to be true isn't much of an argument. One needs evidence.

Nope, because it is illogical.

What a compelling and well thought out response.

They are.

Do you have any concept of how little credibility your baseless assertions have, here?

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

No thanks, unlike you I'd like to work with a full complement of facts. I'll happily run through the problems with the vanilla version of the argument, but I'd rather not be accused of strawmanning whatever version you're using; why not just present your little doodad, so I can tailor my response to that specifically?

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

Yes: all the evidence.

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.

You made an assertion. That means absolutely nothing. I could do the same, as I've already pointed out; I don't, because "nuh uh!" isn't actually an argument that adults should use. And again, in doing so you still missed the actual point I was making...

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: “Well, why don't we go and find out?”
B: "No, they must have been made by magic."
A: "What?
B: "Magic."
A: "But magic doesn't exist, as far as we know."
B: "Hotdogs are made by magic. Anything else is illogical. Without magic, you can't make any meat. "
A: "You just said you hadn't been to the factory."
B: "Magic accounts for how hotdogs are made. You can't account for that, and therefore I'm right."
A: “Huh?”

Fixed that for ya.

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

Just asserting your answer is correct doesn't make it so. Can you stop with this petty bullshit?

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.

And your made up reason isn't correct just because you decided to say it is. Besides, there's another argument from ignorance here, which is that you've no way of knowing whether the laws of nature will stay the same in every circumstance. You're just asserting it.

I love how your every position is based on ignorance.

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

So you can't refute me without an argument from ignorance? That's all I needed to know.

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

Floontium is made of Floontium, Stat. Try to keep up. And Floontium ensures the natural laws remain stable over time, because so far, there has always been Floontium.

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).

You don't actually know what an argument from ignorance is, do you Stat? You're engaging in an argument from ignorance, about arguments from ignorance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Poor, Esq. Too bad he can never see how logically inconsistent he has become. Good job, Mr. Waldorf.

[Anomalocaris]

You've already sunken to having the likes of wardork as a peer and still you are digging.

[Esquilax]

Poor, Esq. Too bad he can never see how logically inconsistent he has become. Good job, Mr. Waldorf.

Still haven't got the hang of rhetorical language or evidence, eh Chad? That must be why your entire argument, as theistic arguments so often become, is nothing more than smug back patting and assertions of victory with nothing to back them up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nah, I am really not even trying. You've been refuted so many times that it's grown old. Now I'm just sitting back and watching you, and the other atheists, tie yourself into logical knots.

[Whateverist]

Seems to me that atheists might try answering the same question: do we think we're immune to being deceived? I'd like to think we'd answer yes, we are capable of that. But I'm not so sure what percentage of us would admit it. Obviously if we're deceived, we're not aware of it. I'm sure we would beat the percentage the theists on this site would put up. But I'm pleased that the number of them who answered yes would not be zero.

[Esquilax]

Nah, I am really not even trying. You've been refuted so many times that it's grown old. Now I'm just sitting back and watching you, and the other atheists, tie yourself into logical knots.

Way to confirm what I said on the "no arguments, just smug declarations of victory," front, Chad.

[The Reality Salesman01]

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.

You invoke an entity to account for something that I admit I cannot account for. I am not entirely convinced that they need be accounted for, or are necessarily something absolute as you seem to think they are. Nonetheless, there's nothing dishonest about admitting when my understanding comes to a hault. You are being intellectually dishonest by praying on my humility (which you seem to view as theft) and using it as an opportunity to plug in your God (for which you cannot account for), If you can believe in God without being able to account for his existence, how is it you then take issue with my recognition of reality? There are things in reality I don't understand, you maintain that you understand everything, yet you cannot account for God or justify your invocation of your particular version? You cannot distinguish your God as the real God over all others that are being solicited. You have no foundation for your belief other than a really old text. You are just claiming to have answers and pleading for special exceptions so as to be granted immunity with regards to providing explanations. Which one of us is "engaging in intellectual laziness"?