does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[ding]

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

I am biased against any proposition that's been made that I reject - which for any Religious deity, is all of them...same as I reject any argument for Unicorns. Never been compelled to believe in either one, and so I consider them on the same playing field in my belief system and there's nothing you can do about that, so you lash out. It's fine, I'm used to it. Folks are triggered when others don't believe as they do, and you're inmate #1 in that regard.

You are talking about religion, not a creator. You reject other people’s perception of God.

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.

You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.

What is your standard for burden of proof for a multi-dimensional being which exists outside of space and time?

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?

 

[G.T.]

Still waiting for that compelling argument for unicorns. Anyone?

I've seen compelling arguments for neither -

And personally, I've always thought you were the biggest, not maybe second/maybe third, dipshit on the Religion forum. That's including danielpalos, who only posts about boobyfarts...and mindful, who only makes drive-by dumb-blonde commentary and neener-neener crap like a teeny-bopper...

& That analysis not due to anything shy of reading your dumbass arguments full of fallacies, lack of critical thought, mis-understanding of nuance and then arrogance to boot - - - previously addressing how each idea is inept, addressing how much of what you say has been formally debunked lo0o0o0ong ago and you're using aged philosophical arguments, pointing out that since they've been adequately debunked in a formal, academic setting and you continue using them...like the moral argument, like the cosmological argument, etc.....& you pretend as though they've not been addressed... is just more evidence for you that you've got a terrible confirmation bias....all this - and the fact that many, many posters that have an i.q. above the air temperature have addressed them adequately as well --

You are the LAST person that could compel me, with an argument.

If you post more then 4 sentences, I don't even read your posts...it's too chock fulla dumb shit.

 

[Mindful]

Still waiting for that compelling argument for unicorns. Anyone?

I've seen compelling arguments for neither -

And personally, I've always thought you were the biggest, not maybe second/maybe third, dipshit on the Religion forum. That's including danielpalos, who only posts about boobyfarts...and mindful, who only makes drive-by dumb-blonde commentary and neener-neener crap like a teeny-bopper...

& That analysis not due to anything shy of reading your dumbass arguments full of fallacies, lack of critical thought, mis-understanding of nuance and then arrogance to boot - - - previously addressing how each idea is inept, addressing how much of what you say has been formally debunked lo0o0o0ong ago and you're using aged philosophical arguments, pointing out that since they've been adequately debunked in a formal, academic setting and you continue using them...like the moral argument, like the cosmological argument, etc.....& you pretend as though they've not been addressed... is just more evidence for you that you've got a terrible confirmation bias....all this - and the fact that many, many posters that have an i.q. above the air temperature have addressed them adequately as well --

You are the LAST person that could compel me, with an argument.

If you post more then 4 sentences, I don't even read your posts...it's too chock fulla dumb shit.

I'm most hurt. I'm a brunette.

 

[G.T.]

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

I am biased against any proposition that's been made that I reject - which for any Religious deity, is all of them...same as I reject any argument for Unicorns. Never been compelled to believe in either one, and so I consider them on the same playing field in my belief system and there's nothing you can do about that, so you lash out. It's fine, I'm used to it. Folks are triggered when others don't believe as they do, and you're inmate #1 in that regard.

You are talking about religion, not a creator. You reject other people’s perception of God.

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.

You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.

What is your standard for burden of proof for a multi-dimensional being which exists outside of space and time?

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?

You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.

 

[Crixus]

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?

Hmm, well, show me an instance of a dude taking a pile of steel 4x4’, putting a 60 point pile of TNT on it, blowing it up and producing a 9 horse power outbord. Folks go at organized religion this way allot. Some stuff we just don’t know. But I still haven’t seen anything nice come from a big ass explosion. Mostly just a mess.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Hmm, well, show me an instance of a dude taking a pile of steel 4x4’, putting a 60 point pile of TNT on it, blowing it up and producing a 9 horse power outbord. Folks go at organized religion this way allot. Some stuff we just don’t know. But I still haven’t seen anything nice come from a big ass explosion. Mostly just a mess.

Your existence was made possible by the "big ass" explosion of a star -

How star stuff got to Earth

When it has exhausted its supply of hydrogen, it can die in a violent explostion, called a nova. The explosion of a massive star, called a supernova, can be billions of times as bright as the Sun , according to "Supernova," (World Book, Inc., 2005). Such a stellar explosion throws a large cloud of dust and gas into space, with the amount and composition of the material expelled varying depending on the type of supernova.

That's where the elements that made you possible came from. Stars cook um and then spit um like a camel

 

[Crixus]

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?

Hmm, well, show me an instance of a dude taking a pile of steel 4x4’, putting a 60 point pile of TNT on it, blowing it up and producing a 9 horse power outbord. Folks go at organized religion this way allot. Some stuff we just don’t know. But I still haven’t seen anything nice come from a big ass explosion. Mostly just a mess.

You existence was made possible by the "big ass" explosion of a star -

How star stuff got to Earth

When it has exhausted its supply of hydrogen, it can die in a violent explostion, called a nova. The explosion of a massive star, called a supernova, can be billions of times as bright as the Sun , according to "Supernova," (World Book, Inc., 2005). Such a stellar explosion throws a large cloud of dust and gas into space, with the amount and composition of the material expelled varying depending on the type of supernova.

That's where the elements that made you possible came from. Stars cook um and then spit um like a camel

Maybe. Some say it was ultra dense matter the side of a spec of sand that was compressed my massive gravitational forces. Guess I’m to simple to worry much about it. I’m good with being here right now. Sorry.

 

[G.T.]

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?

Hmm, well, show me an instance of a dude taking a pile of steel 4x4’, putting a 60 point pile of TNT on it, blowing it up and producing a 9 horse power outbord. Folks go at organized religion this way allot. Some stuff we just don’t know. But I still haven’t seen anything nice come from a big ass explosion. Mostly just a mess.

You existence was made possible by the "big ass" explosion of a star -

How star stuff got to Earth

When it has exhausted its supply of hydrogen, it can die in a violent explostion, called a nova. The explosion of a massive star, called a supernova, can be billions of times as bright as the Sun , according to "Supernova," (World Book, Inc., 2005). Such a stellar explosion throws a large cloud of dust and gas into space, with the amount and composition of the material expelled varying depending on the type of supernova.

That's where the elements that made you possible came from. Stars cook um and then spit um like a camel

Maybe. Some say it was ultra dense matter the side of a spec of sand that was compressed my massive gravitational forces. Guess I’m to simple to worry much about it. I’m good with being here right now. Sorry.

there's a difference between the big bang and a supernova -

 

[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...

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.

Now you're getting very vague with your language and moving your goalposts yet again... So, now are you claiming that you hold neither belief because of your belief that human reason is insufficient to determine either way? Is this your final answer??

I'm not sure why it is SOOOOO difficult for people to just plainly state what they believe (why all the game playing?) ... I can easily do it. I believe that the Christian God exists. BAM, done... That was easy.

Why can't others just plainly state "I believe that god(s) don't exist", or "I believe that human reason is insufficient to determine the (non)existence of god(s)"?? Why must it dissolve to this silly "I lack belief" bullshit?? That BS is self-refuting, since "I lack belief" is ITSELF a belief... So no, you DON'T "lack belief"... Just be honest and straight-forward about what your belief is...

 

[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.

Now you're getting very vague with your language and moving your goalposts yet again... So, now are you claiming that you hold neither belief because of your belief that human reason is insufficient to determine either way? Is this your final answer??

I'm not sure why it is SOOOOO difficult for people to just plainly state what they believe (why all the game playing?) ... I can easily do it. I believe that the Christian God exists. BAM, done... That was easy.

Why can't others just plainly state "I believe that god(s) don't exist", or "I believe that human reason is insufficient to determine the (non)existence of god(s)"?? Why must it dissolve to this silly "I lack belief" bullshit?? That BS is self-refuting, since "I lack belief" is ITSELF a belief... So no, you DON'T "lack belief"... Just be honest and straight-forward about what your belief is...

If you read more closely, and skip the knee-jerk reactions and the mis-labeling of logical fallacies, you'd see that I CLEARLY, QUITE CLEARLY, stated my position several times. I can cite the post number of the most detailed time for you since you've missed it, while accusing ME of a lack of clarity, mind you


edit to add the post # - post #101.

 

[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.

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.

By claiming "I lack belief", THAT is ITSELF expressing a belief of yours. It's self -refuting. In other words, you BELIEVE that you "lack belief"...

Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true".

By stating that you "lack belief", you are [at that moment] accepting, as a true, the argument that you "lack belief". That, BY DEFINITION, is a belief... It is self-refuting. It is basic logic...

Edit: If one doesn't believe that god(s) exist, there is always a "counter belief" that one holds, such as "god(s) DON'T exist", or "human reason is insufficient to determine (non)existence of god(s)"... There isn't just some void "lack of belief", as to accept that as true would itself be a belief.

 

[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.

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.

By claiming "I lack belief", THAT is ITSELF expressing a belief of yours. It's self -refuting. In other words, you BELIEVE that you "lack belief"...

Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true".

By stating that you "lack belief", you are [at that moment] accepting, as a true, the argument that you "lack belief". That, BY DEFINITION, is a belief... It is self-refuting. It is basic logic...

Edit: If one doesn't believe that god(s) exist, there is always a "counter belief" that one holds, such as "god(s) DON'T exist, or "human reason is insufficient to determine (non)existence of god(s)"... There isn't just some void "lack of belief", as to accept that as true would itself be a belief.

That's completely non-sensical. Lack of belief is a disposition, I'm not sure you understand what that means.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

Now you're getting very vague with your language and moving your goalposts yet again... So, now are you claiming that you hold neither belief because of your belief that human reason is insufficient to determine either way? Is this your final answer??

I'm not sure why it is SOOOOO difficult for people to just plainly state what they believe (why all the game playing?) ... I can easily do it. I believe that the Christian God exists. BAM, done... That was easy.

Why can't others just plainly state "I believe that god(s) don't exist", or "I believe that human reason is insufficient to determine the (non)existence of god(s)"?? Why must it dissolve to this silly "I lack belief" bullshit?? That BS is self-refuting, since "I lack belief" is ITSELF a belief... So no, you DON'T "lack belief"... Just be honest and straight-forward about what your belief is...

If you read more closely, and skip the knee-jerk reactions and the mis-labeling of logical fallacies, you'd see that I CLEARLY, QUITE CLEARLY, stated my position several times. I can cite the post number of the most detailed time for you since you've missed it, while accusing ME of a lack of clarity, mind you


edit to add the post # - post #101.

I never saw your post #101, since I wasn't tagged in it. Since you are saying that it is your clear position, I will assume that your post #101 is your final answer.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Now you're getting very vague with your language and moving your goalposts yet again... So, now are you claiming that you hold neither belief because of your belief that human reason is insufficient to determine either way? Is this your final answer??

I'm not sure why it is SOOOOO difficult for people to just plainly state what they believe (why all the game playing?) ... I can easily do it. I believe that the Christian God exists. BAM, done... That was easy.

Why can't others just plainly state "I believe that god(s) don't exist", or "I believe that human reason is insufficient to determine the (non)existence of god(s)"?? Why must it dissolve to this silly "I lack belief" bullshit?? That BS is self-refuting, since "I lack belief" is ITSELF a belief... So no, you DON'T "lack belief"... Just be honest and straight-forward about what your belief is...

If you read more closely, and skip the knee-jerk reactions and the mis-labeling of logical fallacies, you'd see that I CLEARLY, QUITE CLEARLY, stated my position several times. I can cite the post number of the most detailed time for you since you've missed it, while accusing ME of a lack of clarity, mind you


edit to add the post # - post #101.

I never saw your post #101, since I wasn't tagged in it. Since you are saying that it is your clear position, I will assume that your post #101 is your final answer.

Post 101 was laid out in more detail, but its contents were already observed in posts you were previously a part of. That's not a me problem, dude.

 

[gfm7175]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

I will assume that by "religion", you are referring to something along the lines of 'believing in and worshiping a supreme being (deity)', and that you are not using the word religion the way that I would use the word religion. Hopefully we can agree that Christianity is one example of a religion, as you seem to be using the term here. If so, then I will refer to Christianity directly in place of the "man-made religions" language, as to make the discussion more focused on one specific and known/defined applicable example of the many possible and yet to be presented/defined "made-man religions", as you refer to above.

It seems here that you are rejecting Christianity (one such known and defined example of "man-made religions" that you refer to above) because you believe that it is bullshit. At that moment, you are logically valid in your belief, since you are rejecting it as bullshit on a faith basis. You are not attempting to prove or disprove Christianity, nor are you attempting to justify your belief (that it is bullshit) in any way.

Where your problem arises is the moment you add in the language "I've been presented with enough information to determine"... That is attempting to justify your belief, that the reason why you believe Christianity is bullshit is because of a "lack of good evidence that it is NOT bullshit". That is where your Argument From Ignorance Fallacy comes in, since you might have already been presented with that good evidence to the contrary, but simply remain ignorant of it.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.

Here, you seem to be speaking of the general concept of god(s), not any specific one. I still think it's fair to focus the conversation down to one deity, so I will focus on the Christian God as that deity. Here, you are NOT believing that the Christian God exists, NOR are you believing that the Christian God doesn't exist. Rather, you are believing that human reason is insufficient to determine whether or not the Christian God exists. In other words, you are taking the agnostic position. Your position here is logically valid and does not make any arguments from ignorance.

What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Correct. Belief in any of these things is a religion. The actual existence of those things cannot be proven or disproven. Belief in the actual existence of any of those things requires an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

 

[G.T.]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

I will assume that by "religion", you are referring to something along the lines of 'believing in and worshiping a supreme being (deity)', and that you are not using the word religion the way that I would use the word religion. Hopefully we can agree that Christianity is one example of a religion, as you seem to be using the term here. If so, then I will refer to Christianity directly in place of the "man-made religions" language, as to make the discussion more focused on one specific and known/defined applicable example of the many possible and yet to be presented/defined "made-man religions", as you refer to above.

It seems here that you are rejecting Christianity (one such known and defined example of "man-made religions" that you refer to above) because you believe that it is bullshit. At that moment, you are logically valid in your belief, since you are rejecting it as bullshit on a faith basis. You are not attempting to prove or disprove Christianity, nor are you attempting to justify your belief (that it is bullshit) in any way.

Where your problem arises is the moment you add in the language "I've been presented with enough information to determine"... That is attempting to justify your belief, that the reason why you believe Christianity is bullshit is because of a "lack of good evidence that it is NOT bullshit". That is where your Argument From Ignorance Fallacy comes in, since you might have already been presented with that good evidence to the contrary, but simply remain ignorant of it.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.

Here, you seem to be speaking of the general concept of god(s), not any specific one. I still think it's fair to focus the conversation down to one deity, so I will focus on the Christian God as that deity. Here, you are NOT believing that the Christian God exists, NOR are you believing that the Christian God doesn't exist. Rather, you are believing that human reason is insufficient to determine whether or not the Christian God exists. In other words, you are taking the agnostic position. Your position here is logically valid and does not make any arguments from ignorance.

What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Correct. Belief in any of these things is a religion. The actual existence of those things cannot be proven or disproven. Belief in the actual existence of any of those things requires an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it.

Nope, once again you're incorrect on a very key point.

It's tedious to address 15 paragraphs at once on a message-board, so try and focus on one thing at a time.

I am NOT agnostic on a CHRISTIAN God, and I am NOT "not agnostic" based on an argument from ignorance, and I am NOT saying that my DISbelief in the CHRISTIAN god is due to faith, or due to the fact that I've not seen any arguments that prove it YET. (that would be an argument FROM ignorance).

You spend entire posts merely advising that things have gone over your head - things that were stated quite clearly already.


I am agnostic regarding there being a deity. That's because I have no compelling reasons to believe either way - this is a mere disposition of unbelief, and not an argument from ignorance and why you were incorrect in its usage.

I am NOT agnostic in terms of a christian god, and my reason is NOT because of a lack of valid arguments - - - so not an argument from ignorance - but rather my position is the POSITIVE assertion that it's false because it has internal contradictions, and also made claims about reality that were later proven, by science, to be false. I also find that god to be logically incoherent. That's a positive argument, not an argument from ignorance (argument based on what I DONT know), but instead an argument based on what I DO know.


Last - by "man-made religions" I mean exactly what those terms entail in their LITERAL interpretations.

 

[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.

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.

By claiming "I lack belief", THAT is ITSELF expressing a belief of yours. It's self -refuting. In other words, you BELIEVE that you "lack belief"...

Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true".

By stating that you "lack belief", you are [at that moment] accepting, as a true, the argument that you "lack belief". That, BY DEFINITION, is a belief... It is self-refuting. It is basic logic...

Edit: If one doesn't believe that god(s) exist, there is always a "counter belief" that one holds, such as "god(s) DON'T exist, or "human reason is insufficient to determine (non)existence of god(s)"... There isn't just some void "lack of belief", as to accept that as true would itself be a belief.

That's completely non-sensical. Lack of belief is a disposition, I'm not sure you understand what that means.

Logic is not nonsensical... and since I'm soooooo stoooooooooopid, would you care to define disposition and describe how 'lack of belief' is a disposition as opposed to a belief?

You say that you 'lack belief'... Are you accepting that as true?

 

[G.T.]

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.

By claiming "I lack belief", THAT is ITSELF expressing a belief of yours. It's self -refuting. In other words, you BELIEVE that you "lack belief"...

Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true".

By stating that you "lack belief", you are [at that moment] accepting, as a true, the argument that you "lack belief". That, BY DEFINITION, is a belief... It is self-refuting. It is basic logic...

Edit: If one doesn't believe that god(s) exist, there is always a "counter belief" that one holds, such as "god(s) DON'T exist, or "human reason is insufficient to determine (non)existence of god(s)"... There isn't just some void "lack of belief", as to accept that as true would itself be a belief.

That's completely non-sensical. Lack of belief is a disposition, I'm not sure you understand what that means.

Logic is not nonsensical... and since I'm soooooo stoooooooooopid, would you care to define disposition and describe how 'lack of belief' is a disposition as opposed to a belief?

You say that you 'lack belief'... Are you accepting that as true?

No, I don't actually care to go down any more rabbit holes of your mis-comprehension of terms.

 

[Mindful]

TN: where are you?

You started all this. And now it's turned into the labyrinth.

 

[ding]

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

I am biased against any proposition that's been made that I reject - which for any Religious deity, is all of them...same as I reject any argument for Unicorns. Never been compelled to believe in either one, and so I consider them on the same playing field in my belief system and there's nothing you can do about that, so you lash out. It's fine, I'm used to it. Folks are triggered when others don't believe as they do, and you're inmate #1 in that regard.

You are talking about religion, not a creator. You reject other people’s perception of God.

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.

You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.

What is your standard for burden of proof for a multi-dimensional being which exists outside of space and time?

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?

You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.

So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.