Psychotic Parrot

Joined

• started 19 topics
• posted 683 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts 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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Deputy Dog,

  What you're doing here is admitting that God of the gaps reasoning is a fallacy & i applaud you for it. God may or may not exist, & i assume that like me, you are an agnostic atheist? Because that's what you seem to be advocating here.

  I agree that science hasn't figured it all out yet, i'm not advocating any theory, i'm merely laying them on the table. Scientists are at least trying to figure it out, the God squad would have us believe that they already have.

  To say that God absolutely does exist or that he absolutely does not exist are faith based positions, the only reasonable position is to admit that the answer is currently unknown, & that is my position.

  Oh & i wasn't speaking for the 'people' who make the cosmological argument, i was simply talking about the claims within the argument. You know, the claims that those 'people' make.
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  pisswordprotected,

  I wrote it myself actually, prick.

  I know that thinking & articulating words of your own isn't your strong point, but don't project your own shortcomings on to me.

  Oh & William Lane Craig is an absolute buffoon, i'd love to debate him, i'd demolish him i think. The first thing i'd do is call him out on the stupid burden shift that he always begins debates with, wherein the opponent must "prove atheism" LOL! He is the worst kind of creationist quack.

  And you are the worst kind of poster for swamping my thread with that shit, thanks a lot.
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  tec,

  It's not about dismissing the supernatural, it is simply about accepting that it's existence is not proven. You are free to believe it if you wish, but i urge you to look into some of the alternative naturalist explanations for the origin of spirituality, they are out there, you just need google & some fingers, i presume you have those.
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  The Scotsman,

  Did you even bother to read my first post? What you just demonstrated there was the cosmological argument, & it's a God of the gaps fallacy argument, nothing more. If it really is enough to convince you then you're to be intellectually pitied.

  You also said a number of things there which are downright wrong.

  Firstly, you presented a false dichotamy, by saying that nothing producing everything is the ONLY alternative to God, this is just WRONG WRONG WRONG. It is one of MANY MANY MANY alternatives! Now please go & learn about them pronto! (I listed some of them in my first post which you obviously didn't read).

  Secondly, you stated that nothing cannot produce everything, & that this is a scientifc fact. Wrong again i'm afraid, please google 'vacuum state'.

  Thirdly, you implied that the last episode of Lost was aired some time ago, it was not, it was aired 2-3 days ago.
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Only online
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  Great, well thanks for the white noise JWoods, please do feel free to drop by & leave some more some time.

  Cheers!
• 
  99

  Is the Gospel of Matthew a clever fake ?

  by wobble in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  I can't be bothered to read everything that JB is writing, life is too short, but am i right in thinking that he is honestly making the argument that the possible capitalist motivations of biblical scholars (& only the ones who don't agree with the bible at that) proves that the bible is accurate & divinely inspired?
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  I don't know of ANY argument that can prove the existence of God unless a baseline for proof is stated and even then, it is subjective.

  I mean, for some proof is irrelevant, for others proof is all around them.

  One man's proof is another man's psychosis.

  That's fair enough. Unfortunately for many people these proofs are irrefutable (& that includes many of the posters on this message board) & thus, they require refutation from time to time.
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Psychotic Parrot

  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.
• 
  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.