Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

None of this is showing an argument for a specific belief.  It is showing how your analogy, the only support you've given, is flawed.  Complaints about philosophers don't fix that.  You provided one support for your principle, an analogy.  I've shown that the analogy that you've used is insufficient.  That leaves your principle with no defense other than a litany of appeals to the stone.  That means that your principle about intangible forces, as it sits, is no better off than something you pulled from your ass.  It can be dismissed without support until and unless you provide some support for it.  Until you do so, you have given me just reason to dismiss your whole set of beliefs based upon parsimony and the fact that they are just speculation that is, from the point of evidence, no better off than the standard story.

You can either think up better support for this principle of yours, or keep making fallacious appeals to the stone in a vain attempt to deny your lost argument.

You can keep believing in magical/supernatural effects on matter. You'd fit in quite well with any group of medieval theologians.

I'll stick to believing a dynamic I can see with my own eyes and reproduce, called billiard-ball collisions.

The point is, there are more reasons to believe what I believe (parsimony, the emptiness of your analogies, appeals to stone and incredulity). That makes you stupid and irrational on account of rational argument, not boring name-calling.

You've put forward a belief in a God you can neither see nor touch, all the while complaining about things you cannot see or touch.

[Jal]

You've put forward a belief in a God you can neither see nor touch, all the while complaining about things you cannot see or touch.

You can't touch (pun intended) the cogency of my belief in God because it's a tautology as explained earlier.

The point is, there are more reasons to believe what I believe (parsimony, the emptiness of your analogies, appeals to stone and incredulity).   That makes you stupid and irrational on account of rational argument, not boring name-calling.

You've accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo on a blind faith that is NOT tautological.

[The Grand Nudger]

Religious people often believe as much. We tend to imagine other people are like us and so, if we’re saddled with mumbo jumbo shit…we assume everyone else just must be.

It isn’t true.

[Angrboda]

You've put forward a belief in a God you can neither see nor touch, all the while complaining about things you cannot see or touch.

You can't touch (pun intended) the cogency of my belief in God because it's a tautology as explained earlier.

The point is, there are more reasons to believe what I believe (parsimony, the emptiness of your analogies, appeals to stone and incredulity).   That makes you stupid and irrational on account of rational argument, not boring name-calling.

You've accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo on a blind faith that is NOT tautological.

Please explain why you think your belief in God is a tautology.

[Jal]

You can't touch (pun intended) the cogency of my belief in God because it's a tautology as explained earlier.


You've accepted a lot of scientific mumbo jumbo on a blind faith that is NOT tautological.

Please explain why you think your belief in God is a tautology.

You should believe Religion-X only if you find it impossible to disbelieve Religion-X. 

Clear?   I mean, how else could it work?  What other approach might God take? None, right?

Therefore when God is ready to help someone convert, He must take it upon Himself to impose an invincible persuasion. 

Evangelicals call it, "The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit"  (I thought you and I discussed this already?).

[Angrboda]

Please explain why you think your belief in God is a tautology.

You should believe Religion-X only if you find it impossible to disbelieve Religion-X. 

Clear?   I mean, how else could it work?  What other approach might God take? None, right?

Therefore when God is ready to help someone convert, He must take it upon Himself to impose an invincible persuasion. 

Evangelicals call it, "The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit"  (I thought you and I discussed this already?).

That doesn't make it a tautology. It's only an invincible persuasion if God exists and provided such. If God doesn't exist, it's just a false belief.

This is just you using words incorrectly again.

[Jal]

You should believe Religion-X only if you find it impossible to disbelieve Religion-X. 

Clear?   I mean, how else could it work?  What other approach might God take? None, right?

Therefore when God is ready to help someone convert, He must take it upon Himself to impose an invincible persuasion. 

Evangelicals call it, "The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit"  (I thought you and I discussed this already?).

That doesn't make it a tautology.  It's only an invincible persuasion if God exists and provided such.  If God doesn't exist, it's just a false belief.

This is just you using words incorrectly again.

 Nope. Whether God exists is irrelevant to my point.  Unlike blind faith, a belief is justifiable/ warranted if you cannot relinquish it. 

In fact that is virtually the ONLY scenario where a belief is fully justified.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That doesn't make it a tautology.  It's only an invincible persuasion if God exists and provided such.  If God doesn't exist, it's just a false belief.

This is just you using words incorrectly again.

 Nope. Whether God exists is irrelevant to my point.  Unlike blind faith, a belief is justifiable/ warranted if you cannot relinquish it. 

In fact that is virtually the ONLY scenario where a belief is fully justified.

You're just being silly. The inability to relinquish a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is justifiable. It also doesn't speak to the validity of that belief.

I may believe so strongly that Lupita Nyong'o wants to take me behind the barn and bang me like a snare drum that I find it impossible to rid myself of that belief. Therefore, my belief that she is consumed by lust for me is both justifiable and warranted.

See? Silly.

Boru

Boru

[Jal]

 Nope. Whether God exists is irrelevant to my point.  Unlike blind faith, a belief is justifiable/ warranted if you cannot relinquish it. 

In fact that is virtually the ONLY scenario where a belief is fully justified.

You're just being silly. The inability to relinquish a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is justifiable. It also doesn't speak to the validity of that belief.

I may believe so strongly that Lupita Nyong'o wants to take me behind the barn and bang me like a snare drum that I find it impossible to rid myself of that belief. Therefore, my belief that she is consumed by lust for me is both justifiable and warranted.

See? Silly.

Boru

Boru

Yeah I'm just a silly guy.  Silly, silly, silly. 

I am not sure why you think your reply is cogent.

You cannot rightly/ properly fault someone for invincible thinking (even if we feel the need to do so in this world of imperfect justice). Right?

To fault someone for something he cannot fix is absurd, right? What am I missing here?

If, then, he is faultess/blameless in his belief, he is justified/ warranted in his belief.

And you do understand that, if God exists, this dynamic is the only possible pragmatic way for Him to reveal Himself and govern us?  How else could we recognize His voice?

[Jal]

I am just saying he is morally justified/warranted in sticking to his guns if he cannot do otherwise.

I am not suggesting his belief is necessarily true.