Something For Atheists to Consider

I've asked my questions, William.

You apparently realize it is better for you to avoid them.

Okay, I have no problem with that.

When you decide to answer them...we can move on.

 

Of course there is no physical evidence, as we are discussing something that is not of the physical realm. You want physical evidence for the non-physical, which is nonsensical. You cannot claim that something does not exist just because it does not conform to your own standards of evidence.

Atheists believe that their own standards of proof is absolute, and they have nothing to back up this premise with. Again, it's simply another belief.

- - - Updated - - -

What "things" are we talking about?

 

These "things", whatever they are, don't have to be YOUR idea .


You cannot claim that something exists because you think it should or does......

 

You failed to answer the question.

 

Because your soul is in peril and it's my job to save it .... just kidding.

It's not annoying me at all. Perhaps you are accustomed to contentious exchanges around here.

 

I am, indeed...and I'll accept that you were not just being contentious...and offer an apology.

I apologize, Le Chef.

Using the word "gods" (which I much prefer)...or the expression "god or gods" (which I use occasionally) seems like a more productive avenue for discussion of the topic than using "god" or "God." "God" capitalized or uncapitalized, in an internet discussion, almost always seems to be translated into one of the gods currently being worshiped on planet Earth...and, disturbingly, most often into the god of the Bible.

I want to avoid that.

 

It would be more productive if you dropped any variant of 'god' and just said 'creator' or 'creative force' since I have never seen you once voluntarily clarify the definition of 'gods' that you are specifically arguing.

It is apparent that your contention that you want to avoid 'that' is a false one since the equivocation is the basis of your whole dogma.

 

I prefer to use my words...rather than have you dictate which words I can use and which I cannot, William. The words are reasonable...and I've seen them used in scholarly discussions by learned individuals for years.

In the meantime, answer my questions and we can discuss this (and the other stuff) in greater detail.

My "dogma" is that I do not know if this things we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not...and if it is...there may be a creator god.

Deal with that right after you answer my questions.

 

Why would this change anything for an atheist? Roger Penrose, the credible scientist you're referring to in the article, is an atheist.

 

You failed to understand the answer.

 

I bring it up because it demonstrates how absurd your argument is, and how incorrect you are.

no, it's a parallel example which you have to furiously run away from because it demonstrated how absurd your argument is.

I don't know if there are either. I am correctly pointing out it is more likely than not they there isn't. Just like the easter bunny.

demonstrated otherwise.

lol, flailing? I am right here, very calmly pointing out that you are incorrect, and providing a perfectly analogous example as to why.

 

You cannot be doing it for that reason, because my arguments are neither absurd nor incorrect.

But you seem to get your kicks pretending that they are.

Go for it. I'm getting a kick out of seeing you flail.

No, it is a diversion. The issue of whether or not there are gods...has to do with "creation" if there is such a thing.

The issue of Easter Bunnies has to do with atheists who do not want to acknowledge their "beliefs."

I understand why you guys do that.

You also do not know that it is more likely that there are not.

But apparently you do not have what it takes to acknowledge that.

Anytime you want to show the math that leads you to the "it is more likely than not that there aren't any gods" do so.

We'll all be able to laugh together.

Claimed otherwise. NEVER demonstrated.

You are flailing. Atheists always end up flailing when they argue with agnostics...what with the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, teapots circling Saturn, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

FLAAAILLLING!

 

Lol, I'm not flailing frank. You keep on dodging the easter bunny because you know you can't actually answer it with the same absurd argument you have about god or gods.

the two questions are identical frank. does a god or gods exist? does the easter bunny exist? you have to avoid answering because you know how absurd your position actually is.

yes, we do it to show how ridiculous your argument is.

based on all the available evidence to date, we know it is more likely that there is not. Just like the easter bunny.

I've shown you the math. In all of human history, we have exactly zero evidence that supports the existence of a god or gods. at this time, until such evidence is provided, it is more likely than not one doesn't exist. Just like the easter bunny.

repeatedly demonstrated.

that isn't flailing frank. It's a perfect analogy and shows the absurdity of your position. Which is why you can't/won't address them.

 

I asked what exactly could these "things" be. You didn't give me a straight answer.

 

Well that's the nature of an all powerful being outside of
time and space, isn't it. The minute you try to apply your rules to someone who is outside of your game you lose because the rules that apply to you don't apply to god. You can name it anything you like but it's irrational to think god is bound by your logic.

 

deleted

 

with exactly zero evidence to support such an assertion, you are simply special pleading your way out of infinite regression.

and that is the very definition of special pleading. You are exempting your god because if you didn't, it would fall to infinite regression. You have no evidence what so ever to support your assertion.

lol, imaginary things aren't bound by logic. that's the point.

 

Rahl, do you have any hypothesis to explain a cosmos with no primordial cause? You don't have to say "infinite regress" again. We get it. What is your own explanation or at least working hypothesis, if any?

 

I've demonstrated many times now my simple logical assertion for god. If you don't agree fine. But don't tell me there is no case for god because
you certainly can't say with certainty there is no god.

As I already said god deserves exemption from the boundaries you and I are caught in.
If god were governed by the same circumstances all other humans are then there would be no god at all.

And imaginary things don't create the universe. But something did because it can't create itself and it hasn't always been here.

 

I don't need one. I'm not making any assertions as to a cause. I'm pointing out that jumping to "god did it" is a fallacy and an invalid argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not stating there is no god. I'm pointing out your argument is predicated upon a logical fallacy and thus self defeating.

which is special pleading.

this is a baseless claim for which you have no evidence to support it.

 

You are flailing...and absurdly so, Rahl.

The Easter Bunny may have relevance to atheists...who seem, fascinated by them, but they have no relevance to me.

I do not know if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation or not. IF it is...then that implies a creator.

If you want to discuss the Easter Bunny...do it with a fellow atheist.

The two questions are not identical. The creation of this thing we humans call "the universe" (if it is a creation) is not dependent upon an Easter Bunny...it is dependent upon a creator...a creator god.

The Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy nonsense is something atheists bring to arguments with agnostics, because they want to pretend the atheistic blind guess that there are no gods (or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are)...is something more than a blind guess.

Hey...go for it. It's all you have. The agnostic position of "I do not know" prevails...and the notion that a guess in either direction IS A GUESS does also.

My argument is that I do not know if gods exist or not. There is nothing ridiculous about that...so you cannot be showing me that. That is why I laugh at your assertion that you have shown me to be wrong.

No we do not. What we know is...that we do not know if there are gods or not.

You want to guess that it is more likely that there are none. The other guy wants to guess that it is more likely that there is at least one.

YOU ARE BOTH GUESSING.

No math involved there...and you know it.

What is there is an atheist trying to justify a blind guess that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist...and doing a not especially good job of it.

Never demonstrated. Always claimed.

You are flailing, Rahl. Whenever atheists start with the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, teapots circling Saturn, and Flying Spaghetti Monsters...they are flailing.

They are flailing because they do not want to acknowledge that they do not know if gods exist or not...

...they do not want to acknowledge there is no reason to suppose gods cannot exist...

...they do not want to acknowledge that they may exist.

They want to pretend they have calculated the probability that gods exist and the probability that gods do not...

...and want to pretend that their blind guess is substantiated.

It is actually fun to watch.

I am enjoying myself immensely.

 

No, you didn't understand the answer....now, this is boring so good-bye.

 

You think you can say the magic words (special pleading) and be done with it but you don't even understand your own argument.

Special pleading is asking for an exception
to be made without justification (all those other boys in jail are evil but not my son).
Somebody told you "special pleading" stops the case for god but you were misinformed.

But not really.

Science can detect an exact date, more or less, when our universe
emerged from a singularity (approximately 13.7 billion years ago). Whatever was there before was not our universe or anything at all that we can detect.

 

Nope. I've painted you into a corner which you are furiously trying to avoid. We both know why. You can't deal with the analogy because it shows how absurd your argument is. And you know it does, which is why you keep dismissing it.

 

Lol, now you are special pleading about special pleading.

Yes, really. A textbook example of special pleading.

Again, a baseless assertion which you can in no way support. We have no idea what existed prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang doesn't address it.