God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[Grumblenuts]

Nope, not getting it, she seems to just be unhappy at how people embrace an unproven idea and regard it as true, am I missing anything there?

She clearly doesn't like being lied to. I never have either.

 

[Dante]

Wow! This thread woke up the beast. Thank you abu afak

 

[abu afak]

Lets not conflate creation with religion, that's a common trick but it won't pass unnoticed with me in the room.

Creation Myths aren't part of Religion?
Not the main subject here, and in fact main reason People use to justify religion?
(see the OP title)
Christians and Jews can dispense with Genesis: the OT?

In fact you Creationist Clown, only atheists have dispensed with religion.
No "trick." Just something else you can't answer so you call it a trick.
You're just another sick convert.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fact. Atheism is lack of belief. Look it up and enlighten yourself, Sherlock.

There are two definitions of atheism, the original one and the Flewsian one. The Flewsian definition is a vacuity, to say "I do not hold a belief" is trickery, wordplay.

One cannot say "I do not hold a belief that X is true" unless one knows what the proposition means and if one knows what it means and then chooses not hold the belief then that's no different to saying "I do not believe that X is true" which is the same as "I believe X is false" - i.e. "God does not exist" which is the established and well known original definition.

Yes, as you suggested, "Look at the most fundamental equations in physics" --
I humbly invite you to "go ahead and try" explaining that phenomenon using those equations..

I've not encountered the phenomenon before, but it will be explicable scientifically.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're doing what many atheists do, using the shortcomings and problems in religion to discredit the proposition that the universe was created but it's a false dichotomy.

Lie. I haven't argued the simple idea the universe was created, here.. Maybe it was. I have been very clear that claiming so has no effect on any science.

You are doing the typical, dimestore charlatan's shell game. In this case, you have replaced the idea of your god being the only, correct God with the idea of creationism.

Such cheap tactics may work in church and on AM radio, but they won't help you, here.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Creation Myths aren't part of Religion?

Yes they are, but they are not the same thing.

Not the main subject here, and in fact main reason People use to justify religion?
(see the OP title)
Christians and Jews can dispense with Genesis: the OT?

In fact you Creationist Clown, only atheists have dispensed with religion.
No "trick." Just something else you can't answer so you call it a trick.
You're just another sick convert.`

Just because there are people who believe in creation because they believe in various religious ideas that are false, does not serve to prove their belief in creation is false.

Your argument is an example of the genetic fallacy, that because of the way a belief was adopted is suspect then that belief must be false.

Also, as I've shown in several posts recently, my belief in a creator is rooted in science not religion.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lie. I haven't argued the simple idea the universe was created, here.. Maybe it was. I have been very clear that claiming so has no effect on any science.

You are doing the typical, dimestore charlatan's shell game. In this case, you have replaced the idea of your god being the only, correct God with the idea of creationism.

Such cheap tactics may work in church and on AM radio, but they won't help you, here.

Please do not accuse me of being a "charlatan" when you yourself rely on paraphrasing to make your case. Quote a sentence that I actually wrote and explain why you disagree, don't pretend I said something I didn't and attack that! that's called a strawman argument an ever present risk when debating atheists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please do not accuse me of being a "charlatan" when you yourself rely in paraphrasing to make your case.

I didn't. I said you used a dimestore charlatan's tactic.

Then I named it.

Then I described your use of it.

It's all very simple and clear. Ditching those cheap tactics is YOUR problem to work through, not mine.

Back to the point being discussed before your shell game attempt:


Basic logic tip: don't assume as true that which you are tasked to argue as true, when attempting to make those arguments. It would get you an "F" on a freshman philosophy assignment.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I didn't. I said you used a dimestore charlatan's tactic.

Then I named it.

Then I described your use of it.

It's all very simple and clear. Ditching those cheap tactics is YOUR problem to work through, not mine.

I won't defend an argument I didn't make, if you want to honestly challenge what I wrote quote it (i.e. copy/paste) word for word, do not "describe" what I said in your own words.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I won't defend an argument I didn't make, if you want to honestly challenge what I wrote quote it (i.e. copy/paste)

Then you will be happy to hear that you didn't manage to make any argument. You made an univdenced and unarmed claim, implicitly. I called it out.

Then the shell game happened.

It's all there in black and white.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then you will be happy to hear that you didn't manage to make any argument. You made an univdenced and unarmed claim, implicitly. I called it out.

Then the shell game happened.

It's all there in black and white.

Your arguing with yourself not me, with claims and statements you made up not me.

If you don't quote me then how do we know you actually even understood what I wrote?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your arguing with yourself not me, with claims and statements you made up not me.

Lies, obviously, as anyone who reads our exchange can see. No need to spend any on these lies.

Your response to the idea of beliefs in other gods being at odds with your faith was to say that it's wrong, because your faith is correct.

And you will never, not ever, lift yourself out of this rabbit hole of fallacy.

That's the pratfall of faith. Be proud of your faith and embrace it, or be ashamed of it and try to equivocate away the restraints on holding a belief without a shred of evidence.

Your choice, really.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Lies, obviously, as anyone who reads our exchange can see. No need to spend any on these lies.

Your response to the ideas of other gods being at odds with your faith was to say that it's wrong, because your faith is correct.

And you will never, not ever, lift yourself out of this rabbit hole of fallacy.

That's your last opportunity, unless you quote a sentence that I wrote that you disagree with, I've nothing more to say to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's your last opportunity, unless you quote a sentence that I wrote that you disagree with

I did that. That prompted your charlatan's shell game.

I won't go in circles with you. Go back and read the quote, and your response.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I did that. That prompted your charlatan's shell game.

I won't go in circles with you. Go back and read the quote, and your response.

Very well, why not start from the beginning this was my first post in this thread - if you disagree with anything I wrote in that then say so and we can discuss that, go to it, read and reply if you want to discuss the thread's topic with me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Very well, why not start from the beginning this was my first post in this thread - if you disagree with anything I wrote in that then say so and we can discuss that, go to it, read and reply if you want to discuss the thread's topic with me.

I will.consider your demand and and speak to my people about it. Though i don't think you're in much of a position to demand anything.

That's illogical. A material explanation for the material universe is self contradictory, no scientific explanation is possible because scientific processes cannot operate unless material exists.

100% wrong. More than one completely self.consistent and plausible explanation exists for a universe from nothing.

And for a universe that has always existed.

None of these explanations have any need for the god hypothesis.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I will.consider your demand and and speak to my people about it. Though i don't think you're in much of a position to demand anything.

100% wrong. More than one completely self consistent and plausible explanation exists for a universe from nothing.

Would you care to enumerate these and provide a source perhaps?

And for a universe that has always existed.

Yes that's often cited too.

None of these explanations have any need for the god hypothesis.

Well speaking of the one specific example you gave "a universe that has always existed" how does that proposition qualify as a scientific explanation?

Scientific explanations (causal) are always reductionist in nature, they explain some thing in terms of other more fundamental things, that's a necessary characteristic of a scientific explanation. The "always existed" is not reductionist so is not a scientific explanation, so even if we did consider it as a viable explanation it's not a scientific one, so are you OK with non-scientific explanations?

I am OK with them, I do not see any reason to insist that the explanation must be reductionist (which if you think about it, it ultimately cannot be).

Could you then explain why "it has always existed" is to be preferred over "it was created"?

 

[ding]

Wow! This thread woke up the beast. Thank you abu afak

I find apu to be even less intellectually capable than you and that's hard to do.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

As even you can see, my posts are the intellectual Pillars of the section.

But as you can also see I barely post here any more, and in fact barely ever did.
7K+ in 18 years.
And yet my posts/opinions Dominate the section!

Back to Mensa for me where I don't have to debate accepted science with one-line mental defective motor-mouths like you.

 

[BackAgain]

As even you can see, my posts are the intellectual Pillars of the section.

If, by “Pillars,” you meant shitpiles.