does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[Darkwind]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

How exactly, is the creation of the other elements from the original primal elements an imperfection?

 

[ding]

Everything is perfectly following all laws.

Fascinating. So, which law determined there should be more matter than antimatter in our universe?

Quantum mechanics and conservation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Quantum mechanics and conservation.

Oh REALLY

So you, with google and a latté from Starbucks, have figured out a mystery that eludes the entire cosmological community. Yeah, that seems about right, for a guy who also claims to be in possession of absolute, divine truths.

Or you're full of shit on all counts. I wonder which is more likely? No I don't....

 

[ding]

Quantum mechanics and conservation.

Oh REALLY

So you, with google and a latté from Starbucks, have figured out a mystery that eludes the entire cosmological community. Yeah, that seems about right, for a guy who also claims to be in possession of absolute, divine truths.

Or you're full of shit on all counts. I wonder which is more likely? No I don't....

If you didn’t want to hear the answer you shouldn’t have asked the question.

Space and time were literally created from nothing through a quantum tunneling event approximately 14 billion years ago obeying the law of conservation with nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

No google needed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you didn’t want to hear the answer you shouldn’t have asked the question.

I invite all answers. And anything except "we dont know" is a shameless lie. You are a liar and a quack.

 

[ding]

If you didn’t want to hear the answer you shouldn’t have asked the question.

I invite all answers. And anything except "we dont know" is a shameless lie. You are a liar and a quack.

You invite all answers but only accept one? Interesting.

That doesn’t seem very open minded.

 

[TNHarley]

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Argument From Ignorance.

Everything i posted is true.

 

[gfm7175]

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Argument From Ignorance.

Everything i posted is true.

Everything you posted is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

 

[TNHarley]

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

Argument From Ignorance.

Everything i posted is true.

Everything you posted is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Ummm bullshit. We know all that stuff happened. At least thats whats actual history teaches us.
If you want to apply that bullshit to what i said, that would apply to pretty much all history.

 

[gfm7175]

Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.

The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').

God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.

I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.

I merely havent been presented with good rationale to believe in one.

Theres a stark difference between a positive claim, that there is or is not a god, and a mere lack of belief, which makes no claim and thus no faith is required. Thats logic 101.

Ahhhh, okay. I might have misunderstood you then. Maybe you are actually indifferent to the existence or non-existence of deities? (Not believing either way?) That would be an agnostic, which doesn't make use of faith and is not a religion of any sort. It instead answers the question with "I don't believe either way" (in other words, "I don't accept either argument as a truth", or "I don't know"). Hopefully I gotcha now.

But do be careful with the "I haven't been presented with good rationale" (and similar) language, as that's getting into a subtle Argument From Ignorance fallacy, and is likely the reason why I felt like you were saying that you believe that gods don't exist.

By claiming that you don't believe that god(s) exist because you haven't been presented with good rationale to believe in their existence, you are subtly committing the argument from ignorance fallacy because you MIGHT have already been presented with good evidence of existence, but are simply ignorant of it. Lack of evidence is not a proof.

Also, you don't have a "lack of belief", since claiming that you "lack belief" in something IS, in and of ITSELF, a belief. Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true" (regardless of whether it is actually true or not).

Theists, Atheists, AND Agnostics ALL hold a particular belief. Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) do not exist. Agnostics believe that human reason is insufficient to determine either way (in other words, they answer the question with "I don't know").

So, maybe you are actually an agnostic, but when you've (twice now, this comment and the prior comment) committed that same subtle argument from ignorance fallacy, it seems like you are instead believing that god(s) don't exist (based on "lack of evidence for existence") rather than believing that human reason is insufficient to determine either way.

That's, I think, where my confusion about your position on the topic is coming from...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

Thats incorrect.

An argument from ignorance is making claim X because "no other explanation makes sense."

Im not making a claim, a lack of belief is a mere disposition. Its ground zero. Ive not left ground zero.

Basically, yes, and that's exactly what you're doing... You keep trying to hide behind this "lack of belief" garbage, even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

Basically, either you believe that god(s) exist, you believe that they don't exist, or you don't believe either way (aka, human reason is insufficient to determine either way)... I'm trying to figure out where you fall, but you are giving me conflicting messages between atheism and agnosticism...

As to the Argument From Ignorance, the claim you are making is: "I haven't been presented with good rationale to believe..."... The fallacy is being committed because you MIGHT have already been presented with good rationale, but are simply ignorant of it. You are subtly claiming that there is 'lack of evidence' to the contrary.

 

[G.T.]

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.

I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.

I merely havent been presented with good rationale to believe in one.

Theres a stark difference between a positive claim, that there is or is not a god, and a mere lack of belief, which makes no claim and thus no faith is required. Thats logic 101.

Ahhhh, okay. I might have misunderstood you then. Maybe you are actually indifferent to the existence or non-existence of deities? (Not believing either way?) That would be an agnostic, which doesn't make use of faith and is not a religion of any sort. It instead answers the question with "I don't believe either way" (in other words, "I don't accept either argument as a truth", or "I don't know"). Hopefully I gotcha now.

But do be careful with the "I haven't been presented with good rationale" (and similar) language, as that's getting into a subtle Argument From Ignorance fallacy, and is likely the reason why I felt like you were saying that you believe that gods don't exist.

By claiming that you don't believe that god(s) exist because you haven't been presented with good rationale to believe in their existence, you are subtly committing the argument from ignorance fallacy because you MIGHT have already been presented with good evidence of existence, but are simply ignorant of it. Lack of evidence is not a proof.

Also, you don't have a "lack of belief", since claiming that you "lack belief" in something IS, in and of ITSELF, a belief. Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true" (regardless of whether it is actually true or not).

Theists, Atheists, AND Agnostics ALL hold a particular belief. Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) do not exist. Agnostics believe that human reason is insufficient to determine either way (in other words, they answer the question with "I don't know").

So, maybe you are actually an agnostic, but when you've (twice now, this comment and the prior comment) committed that same subtle argument from ignorance fallacy, it seems like you are instead believing that god(s) don't exist (based on "lack of evidence for existence") rather than believing that human reason is insufficient to determine either way.

That's, I think, where my confusion about your position on the topic is coming from...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

Thats incorrect.

An argument from ignorance is making claim X because "no other explanation makes sense."

Im not making a claim, a lack of belief is a mere disposition. Its ground zero. Ive not left ground zero.

Basically, yes, and that's exactly what you're doing... You keep trying to hide behind this "lack of belief" garbage, even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

Basically, either you believe that god(s) exist, you believe that they don't exist, or you don't believe either way (aka, human reason is insufficient to determine either way)... I'm trying to figure out where you fall, but you are giving me conflicting messages between atheism and agnosticism...

As to the Argument From Ignorance, the claim you are making is: "I haven't been presented with good rationale to believe..."... The fallacy is being committed because you MIGHT have already been presented with good rationale, but are simply ignorant of it. You are subtly claiming that there is 'lack of evidence' to the contrary.

You will need to learn what the argument from ignorance fallacy means, no offense intended.

The argument from ignorance fallacy, defined: an argument that is said to be true because it has not yet been proven to be false.

The disposition of an agent towards each proposition starts at zero, called "unbelief."

Unbelief is not what you "arrive at," it's the beginning of the ride. It's where you start. It's not an argument, but a disposition... which is why you're failing in your usage of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

An argument from ignorance would be something like, god isnt proven to be true, therefore he is false.
My disposition is that I've not seen God proven, so I don't know that he/she/it is true -or-false.

don't know =/= argument

Now, claiming there is a lack of sufficient evidence is a subjective claim, subjective to the Agent making said claim, it's not a Truth claim (big T) - - - - because different people have different standards for the evidence adequate to prove something. To imply that I may have been presented with adequate evidence, and since the adequacy of evidence for a proposition is subjective (to the Agent) - it's you, in fact, committing an informal fallacy. You're trying to posit that I'm ignorant of my own standards, or that I may have been presented with an argument that MEETS my standards, but wasn't aware of it (by the way, that accusation commits the argument from ignorance on the part of the ACCUSER*) -

My awareness is all that I can use to gauge my beliefs.

 

[G.T.]

I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.

And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.

I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.

I merely havent been presented with good rationale to believe in one.

Theres a stark difference between a positive claim, that there is or is not a god, and a mere lack of belief, which makes no claim and thus no faith is required. Thats logic 101.

Ahhhh, okay. I might have misunderstood you then. Maybe you are actually indifferent to the existence or non-existence of deities? (Not believing either way?) That would be an agnostic, which doesn't make use of faith and is not a religion of any sort. It instead answers the question with "I don't believe either way" (in other words, "I don't accept either argument as a truth", or "I don't know"). Hopefully I gotcha now.

But do be careful with the "I haven't been presented with good rationale" (and similar) language, as that's getting into a subtle Argument From Ignorance fallacy, and is likely the reason why I felt like you were saying that you believe that gods don't exist.

By claiming that you don't believe that god(s) exist because you haven't been presented with good rationale to believe in their existence, you are subtly committing the argument from ignorance fallacy because you MIGHT have already been presented with good evidence of existence, but are simply ignorant of it. Lack of evidence is not a proof.

Also, you don't have a "lack of belief", since claiming that you "lack belief" in something IS, in and of ITSELF, a belief. Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true" (regardless of whether it is actually true or not).

Theists, Atheists, AND Agnostics ALL hold a particular belief. Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) do not exist. Agnostics believe that human reason is insufficient to determine either way (in other words, they answer the question with "I don't know").

So, maybe you are actually an agnostic, but when you've (twice now, this comment and the prior comment) committed that same subtle argument from ignorance fallacy, it seems like you are instead believing that god(s) don't exist (based on "lack of evidence for existence") rather than believing that human reason is insufficient to determine either way.

That's, I think, where my confusion about your position on the topic is coming from...

Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk

Thats incorrect.

An argument from ignorance is making claim X because "no other explanation makes sense."

Im not making a claim, a lack of belief is a mere disposition. Its ground zero. Ive not left ground zero.

Basically, yes, and that's exactly what you're doing... You keep trying to hide behind this "lack of belief" garbage, even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

Basically, either you believe that god(s) exist, you believe that they don't exist, or you don't believe either way (aka, human reason is insufficient to determine either way)... I'm trying to figure out where you fall, but you are giving me conflicting messages between atheism and agnosticism...

As to the Argument From Ignorance, the claim you are making is: "I haven't been presented with good rationale to believe..."... The fallacy is being committed because you MIGHT have already been presented with good rationale, but are simply ignorant of it. You are subtly claiming that there is 'lack of evidence' to the contrary.

There's way more wrong, both technically and practically, with what you said here - but I gave you a start.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. You are wrong and should just stop talking about that immediately.

 

[G.T.]

even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. You are wrong and should just stop talking about that immediately.

I tried a stepped approach...but Im not sure he understands that by saying that "unbelief" is an argument from ignorance...he's necessarily positing that its fallacious to NOT believe in ANYthing NOT empirically disproven.

If he doesnt believe in blobby the booger monster on planet x....well... its not been DISPROVEN so...its fallacious not to believe in it.

Unicorns? psshhyaw...not empirically DISPROVEN...so its fallacious not to believe in them.


Mis-using the argument from ignorance is an awesome rabbit hole. lol

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he's necessarily positing that its fallacious to NOT believe in ANYthing NOT empirically disproven.

Right. His argument is crap.

 

[gfm7175]

even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. You are wrong and should just stop talking about that immediately.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. You are wrong and should just stop talking about that immediately.

I tried a stepped approach...but Im not sure he understands that by saying that "unbelief" is an argument from ignorance...he's necessarily positing that its fallacious to NOT believe in ANYthing NOT empirically disproven.

If he doesnt believe in blobby the booger monster on planet x....well... its not been DISPROVEN so...its fallacious not to believe in it.

Unicorns? psshhyaw...not empirically DISPROVEN...so its fallacious not to believe in them.


Mis-using the argument from ignorance is an awesome rabbit hole. lol

Strawman Argument Fallacy.

I never claimed that it is fallacious to not believe in something. I claimed that it is fallacious to attempt to justify your non-belief with "lack of evidence to the contrary"... You need not justify your belief or non-belief. It's just what you believe to be true. Trying to justify belief/non-belief gets into these fallacies...

 

[G.T.]

he's necessarily positing that its fallacious to NOT believe in ANYthing NOT empirically disproven.

Right. His argument is crap.

It could be that he's conflating my unbelief regarding a deity, and my positive claim that the arguments Ive been presented were bad.

Me saying the arguments Ive been presented, to date, are bad is not an argument from ignorance ~ its an evaluation regarding propositions on the table. Not an argument regarding ones Im unaware of.

That possible conflation is the only way I could explain that sort of an egregious error.

 

[G.T.]

even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. You are wrong and should just stop talking about that immediately.

I tried a stepped approach...but Im not sure he understands that by saying that "unbelief" is an argument from ignorance...he's necessarily positing that its fallacious to NOT believe in ANYthing NOT empirically disproven.

If he doesnt believe in blobby the booger monster on planet x....well... its not been DISPROVEN so...its fallacious not to believe in it.

Unicorns? psshhyaw...not empirically DISPROVEN...so its fallacious not to believe in them.


Mis-using the argument from ignorance is an awesome rabbit hole. lol

Strawman Argument Fallacy.

I never claimed that it is fallacious to not believe in something. I claimed that it is fallacious to attempt to justify your non-belief with "lack of evidence to the contrary"... You need not justify your belief or non-belief. It's just what you believe to be true. Trying to justify belief/non-belief gets into these fallacies...

No it doesnt.

Being presented propositions and determining they dont meet their burden of proof is not an argument from ignorance - it doesnt even come close to its definition.

But you were conflating issues, just like I had thought.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

even though "lack of belief" IS in and of ITSELF a belief...

No it isn't. That is ridiculous. You are wrong and should just stop talking about that immediately.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

Hmm, no, calling "lack of belief", "a belief" is quite self-evidently absurd. Thus no argument is required, and, frankly, you should feel embarrassed of yourself for having said it in the first place.