it's distracted me from my work.
And it's distracted me from my drinking and my passive aggression towards my wife. Thanks very much.
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
Did you?
Yeah, the last time I smacked her about I got pinched for it, and after spending a few nights in the cooler I decided it wasn't worth the grief. These days I just drink.
-
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
don't do it in future! It's naughty!
It's a deal.
-
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 actually think it's funny when someone ignores the substance of someone's argument & focuses on the ad hominem attacks only.
I didn't ignore the substance of your argument, I provided an article from a philosopher who directly addresses your argument.
-
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
Oh & in future could you please refrain from trashing threads with really really long & pointless posts that are made just to be spiteful?
Actually, the really long post was directly related to each one of the issues raised in your OP.
-
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
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.
-
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?