I'm not surprised, if all you can say is that you don't understand what someone is saying. I would be more compassionate if you genuinely didn't understand, but the reality is that you were just trying to be spiteful, so i returned the favour.
Psychotic Parrot
JoinedPosts by Psychotic Parrot
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
No one knows whether or not there was anything before the big bang yet. We do not know. Maybe it was God, maybe it wasn't. God is one explanation among many (i listed the others in my first post).
My point is that these arguments do not prove God, they merely posit God.
-
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.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
Nope!
Well okay, let me clarify, as i think you might be missing my point. We know that the big bang was the beginning of the universe as we know it. But we do not know whether or not it was the beginning of everything, or the beginning of time. It could be that the beginning of our universe was preceded by prior natural events in a prior universe, many physicists today believe this to be the case, but no one knows for certain, the jury is still out. Maybe it was the beginning of everything, but we simply cannot say that it was or was not yet!
People making the cosmological argument assume that the big bang was the beginning of everything (everything that isn't supernatural anyway), but this is simply not known to be the case yet, & thus the argument falls flat. The big bang was the beginning of our universe, but not necessarily the absolute beginning of everything.
As for the existence of the supernatural, this is yet to be demonstrated.
-
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.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
The beginning of the universe, the beginning of everything, the beginning of time, take your pick!
-
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.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
DOUBLE POST? HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? MUST HAVE BEEN GOD I GUESS!
-
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.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
You're dumb then aren't you.
-
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.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
God 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. Aside from the fact that this is a God of the gaps argument, it's also hindered by the fact that we do not yet know whether or not the big bang truly was the beginning or not.
FAIL!
The teleological argument = God of the gaps: We see complexity, we need an explanation for complexity, so we throw God in as the explanation. Yet another God of the gaps argument, & one which can easily be refuted in most instances these days anyway. Complexity does not necessarily equate to design, abiogenesis & evolution provide compelling natural explanations for life & it's diversity, for example. This is a very old argument & not surprisingly, it isn't used much anymore, not by serious apologists for God anyway.
FAIL!
The fine tuning argument = God of the gaps: Arguably a subset of the teleological argument, this one is much the same & suffers from similar fallacious God of the gaps reasoning. To simply explain away mysteries of the universe with a "God did it" explanation is no way to understand anything. And with this argument, the very existence of alternative explanations (the laws being set in stone, many worlds, a series of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, the multiverse, it's all one big computer simulation, etc) downgrades the God explanation to the status of 'just another possible explanation', & while it is a possible explanation, it isn't the only one & is arguably not the best one. To say that the fine tuning argument proves their MUST be a God is wrong, the fine tuning argument merely proves that their MIGHT be a God, & that is very different.
FAIL? Well, certainly not a win anyway!
The private revelation argument = God of the gaps: So you had a weird experience eh? Well, i think the possibility that your brain is malfunctioning is a little more convincing than the idea that the sovereign of the universe spoke to you, sorry. Something weird happened which you can't explain? Fine, but don't go straight for the God explanation, that's just presumptuous & a tad arrogant.
FAIL!
The historicity of the bible = God of the gaps: Okay, so putting to one side the fact that most sensible people do not even accept that most of what is in the bible is historically accurate, this is still just another case of "weird things happened that we can't explain, so it must have been God!" Seriously, is that the best your imagination can do? It's getting silly at this point, it really is. I mean to me, even the possiblity of aliens is more convincing than God, though still not that convincing really.
FAIL!
The ontological argument = okay, not a God of the gaps argument, but certainly not a 'decent' argument, just pure silliness actually: Another old argument, medieval in fact, & thus, it falls prey to medieval thinking. One can imagine a greatest possible being, perfect in every way, & one of the qualities necessary for perfection is existence, therefore this being exists. I won't argue that were this being to exist, it would arguably fit most descriptions of God (although it wouldn't mean that this particular God necessarily created the universe, or us) but this argument falls flat for two reasons. Firstly, it's fucking stupid, & secondly, existence is not a quality, it is a prerequisite for possessing qualities. The ontological argument is based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word 'qualities'. And anyway, if such a being existed, you'd still have all of your work ahead of you to show that this being was the God of the bible, especially since the God of the bible was far from being the 'greatest possible being', iron chariots anyone?
FAIL!
The rest: The rest are things like 'the love argument' & 'the moral argument', which simply state that without God we cannot have objective morality or objective explanations of love, some even say that we cannot know morality or love at all without God. Well, maybe they're right, who cares, none of this proves that God exists, it merely proves that the things which we humans old closely & revere are, *gasp* rather fragile & lacking in solid foundations. Wow! Who ever would have ever guessed it?! ¬_¬
FAIL? Well as far as proving God, yes! But as far as putting humans in their place, i think we can call this one a success, though that's hardly the goal of the apologists for God is it? Or is it?
At the end of the day i'd say this, even if any of the arguments were convincing, which none of them particularly are, the person making the argument still wouldn't have much of a case. You can't argue God into existence, you need physical evidence, or at the very least a mathematical model of some kind, & when it comes to God, the best physical evidence we have are the anecdotal arguments of people claiming to have met God, & they're about as reliable as people who claim to have met (& usually to have had sex with) aliens, & we all know what we think of them. And as for mathematical models? Well, since even string theory is laughed at by lots of scientists today, a mathematical God theory would probably blow the roof off!
Wow, what a pointless thread.
-
28
CO visit, end is nigh
by judi8751 inspoke to my jw husband today ( we dont live together), he has the co visit this week..." the end is very close now,we need to stay focused, now is not the time to be missing meetings,co was very positive, a great speaker, i sense myself that the end is just round the corner"......hmmmm i remember a co visit around 1990, i too thought the end was just around the corner, in fact my daughter would not start school lol, her son started school 2years ago.. did i miss something or do i have to wait till my grandsons kids go to school..... loools.
how could i have wasted so many years, is there a syndrome for this ????
?.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
Your daughter must be one young mother.
-
99
Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?
by wobble inthe answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
Woah BTS if i'd never get read (& i've made a fool of you three times so far in the last few weeks, you've literally run away from threads once i've called you out on your hypocritical bullshit) think where that would leave you? You'd probably be banned from this board for being an excessively pointless poster.
Seriously, go back to the watchtower BTS, you belong there.
-
99
Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?
by wobble inthe answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
-
-
Psychotic Parrot
I only ever read the intellectual posts in these threads, like the ones by leo. I always ignore the aplogoists now lol, i've come to realise that they have nothing interesting or coherent to say