im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
Sea Breeze:
So, you admit that you have "no explanation at all"?
Not what I said. Your expectation that I should have an alternative explanation to compete with your imaginary one is fallacious.
Whether or not I have a real or imagined alternative explanation to your religious superstitions has no bearing on whether your religious superstitions are true. Hence, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
See Breeze:
The reason that you and I both subsribe to, use & have total faith in the laws of logic is because we both know the God of the bible. (Romans 1: 18) We are all "without excuse". You were made in his image same as I and use his inventions same as I do. You know those laws don't change because God "changes not." He is the source of your confidence in the truths we agree upon.
Sigh. No, irrelevant sophistry in a religious text does not trump what I know to be true about my own thoughts. š
What other conclusion could a thinking person come to?
A nonsensical question. Obviously, different individuals could hold any number of alternative real or imagined beliefs.
Straw man. I made no such claim that "an assumption of chaos, chance, and physicality can support nonphysical, stable and complex conceptual truths from such a source" (though you also haven't demonstrated that such couldn't be the case, hence an argument from incredulity). The expectation that I should have some alternative explanation at all to 'compete' with your imaginary explanation is a false dichotomy, and at its core, also a fallacious appeal to pride.You claim that an assumption of chaos, chance, and physicality can support nonphysical, stable and complex conceptual truths from such a source. It makes no sense.
Your worldview is inconsistent. And, that should matter to you.... logically speaking.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
I see no reason to play into the charade that the superstitions are necessary or relevant to better understanding the nature of the universe. All you need to do to stop holding the superstitions is to suspend belief in an idea until there is actual evidence to support it. Using arbitrary Bible verses as axioms does not actually constitute evidence.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
Iām saying, correctly, that your unevidenced unfalsifiable religious superstitions add nothing but additional assumptions about the nature of the universe.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
š¤¦āāļø your addition of a bunch of religious superstitions - piled on top of the same fundamental things about reality that we recognise in common - are actually superfluous.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
š¤¦āāļø The ārules of logicā arise from the basic understanding that āthings are what they are and are not what they are notā. These are basic concepts that hold true irrespective of whether things āarise by chanceā.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
The loaded question is an irrational non sequitur that attempts to shift the burden of proof. The question assumes that logic canāt exist at all in a universe ābased on chanceā (a form of false equivalence) and presents a false dichotomy with Christianity implied as the only alternative.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
š¤¦āāļø
Aristotle recognised principles of logic long before Christianity, so I guess we should all be worshiping Zeus. š
Also, the existence of an all powerful deity violates the laws of thermodynamics and is therefore illogical special pleading.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
See Breeze:
If Christianity wasnāt true, you would have no logic at all, much less the ability to spot a fallacy.
Non sequitur, begging the question.
im not an atheist, makes no mathematical sense, nor does the buy(more) bull(shit) god make any logical sense... maybe a deist on my best day, in the end you cannot get something from nothing, paradox if you ask me... but in reality i just dont care.
while in, and moving out of the cult, its like a roller coaster, emotionally, yet, for me, over time, i just take it one day at a time, and if appeasing some special deity is required, well i guess i failed.
lol.
Ahā¦ the āfine tuningā argument. Yawn.
Youāve provided no math, nor even any demonstration that an alternative presentation of the universe is probable or even possible. As expected, your āmathā argument is just an argument from incredulity.
Back in reality, the probability that things have already happened the way they happened is exactly 1.
