What would you call my new beliefs?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It is important to remember that ' God did it' isn't actually an explanation, as the term is commonly understood. The reasons it doesn't work are legion, but the primary one is that God cannot be defined outside of the 'explanations'. 'What is God?' 'God is what created the universe.'

Tautology at its finest.

Boru

[Harry Nevis]

You have no arguments, just assertions.  I'll pass.

So, you were not really looking for a discussion, just looking for kudos for cheap shots that you are not equipped to back up. Good to know where you are on the "thinker vs. cool-aid-drinker" scale.

You don't discuss.  You assert.  And you can't back any of them up except in your own little mind.  Someone would have to be seriously addled to to be led to a religion by you.

[SteveII]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

[SteveII]

But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.

[Faith No More]

Well, I would rather have a well constructed set of arguments that demonstrate that I have an internally consistent worldview, then to cobble together a bunch of "we don't knows", "brute facts", theories impossible to apply scientific methods to, and a huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers.

Well, kudos for admitting that you'd rather make up answers than accept that certain things cannot be known. Maybe you can answer a question for which no one seems to have the solution. What is it about intellectual integrity that theists find so abhorrent? Why do you guys seem to think that acknowledging you don't know something is a weakness?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that's the point: if you define God is the creator of all things, and then cite God as the 'best explanation' for the creation of the universe, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Until and unless God can be defined outside of what you wanted to prove, you're simply engaging in philosophical tail-chasing.

My point has nothing to do with verificationism.

Boru

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.

You insist on missing the point. God is not 'already defined elsewhere', as you yourself said in an earlier post. The whole Kalam cosmological argument is an attempt to prove what is already assumed, it is manifestly NOT an attempt to find out about the beginning of the universe. If cosmology were equated to a murder investigation, the KCA would be analogous to detectives trying, not to prove who committed the crime, but that John did it.

Boru

[SteveII]

Well, I would rather have a well constructed set of arguments that demonstrate that I have an internally consistent worldview, then to cobble together a bunch of "we don't knows", "brute facts", theories impossible to apply scientific methods to, and a huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers.

Well, kudos for admitting that you'd rather make up answers than accept that certain things cannot be known.  Maybe you can answer a question for which no one seems to have the solution.  What is it about intellectual integrity that theists find so abhorrent?  Why do you guys seem to think that acknowledging you don't know something is a weakness?

As I said in my post, I have reasons for everything I believe. There are some things that I do not know and will admit that I do not know--so your "weakness" conclusion is not true. 

As far as intellectual integrity, it is easy to write that overused allegation. Do you have any specifics on how I am lacking?

[Faith No More]

As I said in my post, I have reasons for everything I believe. There are some things that I do not know and will admit that I do not know--so your "weakness" conclusion is not true. 

Then why the dig at atheists for having a bunch of "I don't knows" and a "huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers?" You definitely give off the vibe that there is something wrong with admitting you're unable to answer something.

Give me an example of something you don't know, and I guarantee it will really just be that you believe that god did it, you just don't claim to know how. That's not the same as recognizing there are questions you'll never be able to answer.

As far as intellectual integrity, it is easy to write that overused allegation. Do you have any specifics on how I am lacking?

Lol, you're a Christian. Your religion is a textbook example of tossing intellectual integrity out the window. Feels over reals, as the kids say.

[SteveII]