So in my mind faith is one more juicy lil thing like love, music, and playing Xbox that might be a complete waste of time but somehow makes me very happy and enjoy my life.
Well put.
passwordprotected
JoinedPosts by passwordprotected
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
What more was there for me to say?
Why don't you read your abandoned thread again and try to apply your god-given braincell to the responses presented.
___
The answer given was yes. Therefore, the question posed by the thread was answered.
Are you taking ad hominem lessons from the Parrot? If so, I think you're on the right road to extra credits. Peace.
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
To say that the Bible introduces Jesus as the creator does not answer the question as to how we get to accept that, we may, by using rationalism conclude the need for a creator, but why should that be Jesus ? I know that the other claimants have even less credence, the gods of the Hindu religion for example, but I still do not see what credibility the claim for Jesus has.
This is probably off topic, but what would be credible to make that claim?
You also seem to think we who doubt need everything empirically proven , that is of course impossible, we cannot experience the Big Bang, or black holes and many other things so an element of rationalism has to be used by all of us, creationists or chaositists. (There, a neologism ! )
I wouldn't dispute that.
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
By the way pisswordprotected, you're really out of your depth here.
If you say so.
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
Here you go again proving yourself to be a total ignoranimous. Why don't spend your time finishing trashing your own thread, the topic you were unable complete on, instead of polluting another topic
Sorry, the question was "Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?. The unequivocal response I go was "yes". And by receiving that answer it was confirmed to me that atheists have an inconsistant and contradictory worldview. What more was there for me to say?
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
PP
i have no belief in God
That's fine, if that's your presupposition.
I am an agnostic because i am intellectually neutral on the matter of his existence
That statement seems to contradict the first.
____
LMAO. Brilliant.
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
I am an atheist because i have no belief in God.
Then why do you keep trying to prove he isn't real?
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
I wish I could find an atheist who would admit to being a presuppossitional atheist.
Fantastic point.
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
Parrot, keep up the ad hominem attacks and name calling. Like I said, you're doing your team proud.
-
120
Are there any decent arguments for God's existence which do not fall prey to the argument from ignorance fallacy? (i.e. God of the gaps)
by Psychotic Parrot ingod of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
-
-
passwordprotected
What do you think of the theory that says that energy has always existed, and that it is possible that the universe expands until the force that causes the expansion becomes so weak that it then implodes and becomes the particle or whatever preceeded the Big bang, and then a big bang occurs again and the universe expands until..... and so on. ? ( I don't think I have expressed that very well, sorry)
The oscillating universe theory. As such, it's a theory with no empirical evidence to prove it.
Another question, for believers , or two really, first you cheerily say " nothing comes from nothing" then you claim that god made the universe from.... nothing ???
If God is, y'know, God, wouldn't he be able to do that? After all he doesn't exist in the natural universe and isn't constrained by the laws that exist in the universe he created. Is that as much of a leap of faith as believing that somehow living organisms developed from a biogenesis of non-living matter and that these organisms figured out they needed to acquire and utilise energy, acquire information and process that information, correct that information over time, pass on that information to its offspring, etc, and that from one single-celled organism all living things on the planet evolved of millions of years? Probably.
And this is important, if we concede, just for the fun of it, that an "outside" force or even personality brought about the Universe, how do you get from that to the God of the Bible ?
It's my opinion that Jesus Christ is the only religious figure who is claimed to be equal to God and is asserted in the Bible as being the image of - the revelation of - God. Jesus is identified in the Bible as the creator of the universe.