Reality Anchor; Science or God ?

are you referring to The Kalam Cosmological Argument? Lack of an explanation is not proof for another explanation.

 

I told you why I wanted to begin with the first and not answer the last first etc. This is my thread and I would like to discuss. If you want to discuss a subject using your guidelines I urge you to begin a your own thread. TALK ABOUT STALLING !!! LOL...


reva

 

Seems like it would be exactly like getting married by Elvis in a drive up window.

 

That is your modus operandi. You run when you can't answer.
You would have only one choice of going easy on people.
You don't have the argumentative skills to make it hard.

 

Public forum.
No one is subject to your decrees.
You can continue to ignore the stuff you can't handle if you like.
No one will be shocked by this.

 

I personally think the KCA lends the best evidential support of the many ontological and cosmological arguments. However where did you come up with such an error-filled definition of the KCA or any cosmological argument? FYI, A cosmological argument like the KCA (which is not a 'regular CA)' makes a claim then uses logically valid syllogism and other tools of logic and observational evdience etc to support its 'inference'.


reva

 

Sit down and stifle !


But you are correct ! So when L answers I will respond to him not you.

reva

 

I meant that's how I describe my atheism: weak. You cannot possibly be that obtuse. You asked if I was a weak or strong atheist. I responded with "Weak" and you somehow think I'm calling your query weak? WTF?

- - - Updated - - -

You took a direct answer as an affront, and apparently a comment as some sort of command. Now you're just being silly.

 

You studiously avoid that he explicitly stated that a lack of an explanation is not proof of anything. It isn't even evidence.

 

I don't think I will.
I don't expect you to respond to me.
You have made it very clear you can't handle it.
Now you finally admit it!

 

DELETE

 

!!!!!DISCLAIMER!!!!! I HOPE THIS WRITE IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO READ, NO TIME TO EDIT~~~~~

Its not easy at all and because of that I was asking questions to prepare for a good rebuttal. However you have demonstrated a reluctance to provide information that is just short of tooth getting jerked out with door and a piece of string or rusty barbed wire In any case I have wrote a short rebuttal which could of been much shorter, but who cares ...eh?

So lets have a look at this. that I have no beliefs either way. I am assuming you are not simply ill defining the words and that you are really an agnostic instead of atheist!


Ok...even though we began this discussion on the wrong foot kets try to conclude ? Why do I think your position of atheism is um'... dishonest for lack of a better word? As I said I am not attempting to place fault or accountability on the dishonest definition and or description. The dishonesty in question is not an ethical issue, or a moral failure at least in this case. Let me say that there’s a difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. There’s a difference between saying, you do not believe (p)*”… and you believe (not-p). So speaking in a strict logical manner the placement of the negation makes all the difference“*. So where is the problem, i.e. the ‘dishonesty‘? Stay with me and Dr Craig…. “It’s in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God“. ** The deception lies where atheism is taken to be a view. Specifically the view that there is no God. Still with me? Atheists that hold your view will not defend their view nor will they produce evidence to prove that there is no God! They demand theists produce evidence and all manner of proof that God exists while they unfairly and dishonestly refuse to defend their position. THAT is the dishonesty my fellow! Some of the more ‘bit more’ honest atheists will candidly admit that they cannot muster such a defense. Even they shirk their responsibly by changing the definition of atheism from a view to a ‘psychological condition that renders no assertions. Remember when I mentioned agnostics? I think most so called atheists that make that claim are really agnostics that haven’t ventured out of the closet. They want the intellectually popular title of atheist but not the burden of defending it against their peers and others. So my fellow member now you see why I say yours is a dishonest position to hold? Again and understand I am NOT saying you are intentionally being deceptive, it’s more like denial.

Notes ** * Dr koon and other PhD level apologists hold this view on atheism, the net is full of their papers many of which I use as research material and to flesh out difficult writes. When I use an asterisk it indicates a section that is close to a original web page article.

reva

 

You were right. It needed serious editing.
Be that as it may, logically speaking the burden of proof is always on the one who makes the positive claim.
As has been stated many times, if I claim leprechauns are real the burden of proof is on me, as there is no previously known data to support the claim.
Another fallacy you suffer under is the meanings of the words "atheist" and "agnostic". One can be both, or be a theistic agnostic. One is about what one believes, the other is about what can be known. Different concepts entirely.
You repeatedly call the other poster dishonest, say he's lying. Your words. Then you turn around and say he is not being deliberately deceptive.
That is how lying is defined.
Please stop making unfounded accusations that so blatantly display your ignorance or callous dishonesty.

 

So a direct answer to your question ("weak") was just short of pulling teeth? You're really going to keep pretending that I was being evasive?

Nope, the definition of atheist is someone who does not hold a belief about a god or gods. An agnostic is someone who does not know if a god exists or not. They are not mutually exclusive terms, and the vast majority of atheists are also agnostic. I don't really care, though. If you want to call me an agnostic, that's fine. Plenty of people have made this delineation between agnostics and atheists, and then continued to treat the people they've chosen to define as "agnostics" as if they fall into their "atheist" group. As long as you aren't like those folks, then it isn't a problem for me.

How is an atheist supposed to show that no gods exist? Let's turn it around. I'm god. I'm the Hebrew god. I've declared it to be so. You either believe I am or you don't, right? Using Craig's (and presumably your) logic, then, if you believe I am not the Hebrew god, then you have an obligation to show evidence that I'm not. I guarantee you can't do it. No matter what you say to try to shift the burden back to me, I can put it back on you and show that you haven't sufficiently supported your claim that I'm not god. It is the responsibility of the person making the positive claim to provide evidence for it. Shifting the burden of proof to the other person is true dishonesty. So, since you can't prove that I'm not god, would you describe yourself as agnostic (not knowing) about my divinity, or actually atheistic (not believing) about it, or both?

Edit: So, lumping me into your idea of what an agnostic is, and recognizing that I hold no beliefs about the existence of any gods, do you now see why my world view would not radically change if it was shown that a god, any god, exists?

 

Faith is called Hypothesis is Science.

 

hy·poth·e·sis/haɪˈpɒθəsɪs, hɪ-/ Show Spelled [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses /haɪˈpɒθəˌsiz, hɪ-/ Show Spelled [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.

Not remotely related.