Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[no one]

I'll take "Stupid things religious people say" for $666, Alex.

[Deesse23]

double post

[The Architect Of Fate]

Category mistake: asking for concrete/empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical being.

Your request is logically invalid

HE asked for concrete. NO word about empirical. Could have been concrete metaphysical evidence, concrete ...miraculous evidence.

Very telling about your standard for evidence if you think asking for concrete evidence for your belief is too much. Thus, by your own admission, you believe in stuff without concrete evidence.

What I meant by a category mistake is that disembodied minds (e.g. God) can't be the object of a mundane scientific experiment. By definition of a disembodied mind, one cannot derive some experiment that proves its existence, unlike an embodied mind (e.g. human beings) or an object/particle such as electrons.

Wrong

If a disembodied mind exists, then it interacts with reality, at least thats what theists like you claim all year long. Like telling you what it wants, like inspiring (embodied) minds to write holy books, or to try and kill their kid on an altar.....even creating whole universes.
Whatever...if this disembodied mind exists, its interaction with/effect on reality should be able to be investigated.

In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention.

Evolution could also have been triggered by evolution triggering pixies*. Is that enough to make you believe in evolution triggering pixies? No? Why? ...please dont say evidence. 


*who just trigger evolution(s) and then *poof* disppear, without we ever being able to figure out them pixies did it in the first place

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, 

Please show your calculation for this probability.

We recognize design by putting it in contrast with nature. If you claim everything is designed, you have nothing to compare to. Everything just as well could be natural (which it most probably is). You know a car engine is designed, because car engines dont occur naturally. You dont infer car engines are designed because they are complex. Thats a fallacy. As an engineer i have to add that hallmark of a good design is simplicity. You certainly and obviously have no idea about these principles.

So, no, universe and car engines....Nonsense and equivocation fallacy.

We know cars are designed because we designed them. This applied to non-man-made objects. Theists are so dishonest

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

We’re often told that God is unique, in form, in substance, in nature. If true, then making an analogous argument about God with ANY mundane object - say, peanut butter - cannot be considered valid and fails on the face of it. In fact, God is so esoteric and so far beyond human comprehension that all God-talk is just so much wind.

The only way around this - that is, to talk about God coherently - is to accept that God has at least some mundane, empirical qualities (Winter attempted this and failed in a truly epic fashion). Theists by and large seem very resistant to go down that road. I wonder why…

Boru

[Pat Mustard]

I see Kloro has gone full Napoleon XIV. Good for him.

[brewer]

blah, blah, blah.......... you must agree that my argument for god is valid..........blah, blah, blah

[no one]

Kind of pathetic when your satirical lampooning is more significant than klorophorm's entire argument.

[The Architect Of Fate]

As I said Klor. No one here takes you seriously. Your a clown  

[no one]

Clowns are funny on purpose.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Clowns are funny on purpose.

Not all