Arguments for God's Existence

[Sparhafoc]

You can see LEROY doesn't want to address a single point raised.

No problem. This will be a permanent record of his mendacity.

I will simply continue on with dismantling WLC's screed, and LEROY will keep pretending I am not doing it.

Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

 

[leroy]

You can see LEROY doesn't want to address a single point raised.

No problem. This will be a permanent record of his mendacity.

I will simply continue on with dismantling WLC's screed, and LEROY will keep pretending I am not doing it.

Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

and still not getting any direct answers

leroy wrote:
a) Yes

b) No


based on the evidence which do you think is more probably true? a or b?

ether the universe has a cause, or it didn't, these are the only 2 possibilities, so based on your research which of these possibilities do you find more probably true?


just type A or B, all you need is type a single letter from your keyboard.

 

[Sparhafoc]

and still not getting any direct answers

He says ignoring the post where he got a direct answer to his question based on ignoring a previous post.

leroy wrote:
a) Yes

b) No


based on the evidence which do you think is more probably true? a or b?


ether the universe has a cause, or it didn't, these are the only 2 possibilities, so based on your research which of these possibilities do you find more probably true?


just type A or B, all you need is type a single letter from your keyboard.

Either the universe had a cause, or it didn't, or the truth is far stranger than we can imagine.

I understand you are mentally restricted to thinking in binary, LEROY, but I am not so handicapped. Ergo, I rejected your binary, and I reject it now. Also, I will continue to reject it each time you repeat it while ignoring my previous rejection.

Ignoring what I say and pretending I didn't answer just makes you a troll.

Don't you aspire to be anything other than a common garden troll?

So, do you still beat your wife, LEROY?

I asked you this question a dozen times now - why won't you give me a straight answer? All you have to do is type 'yes' or 'no' - how hard can it be? Are you trying to hide that you still beat your wife? Or are you ashamed that you used to?

Don't worry LEROY - I won't judge. Just answer the question:

DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption

...

A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question.

This is the 4th thread in which I've quoted this to you. Madness is when you do the same thing and expect different results. You expect to be able to corner me with an idiots' conundrum, but each time I will show how you've failed at elementary logic, and this will continue to have the implication that you are far less competent than you believe.

 

[Sparhafoc]

c) suspend taking a position until taking a position becomes credible.

There's my answer!

Don't like it? Tough titties padawan.

Don't like it? That's why you get to have your own position. Just like I get to have my own position.

See how this works, or do you need a diagram drawn in crayon?

 

[leroy]

[DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE?

the difference is that it this case there is a third option, namely I have never beat my wife.



but in this particular case ether there are only 2 options, ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't.


so A or B?

 

[leroy]

Sparhafoc wrote:
c) suspend taking a position until taking a position becomes credible.

ok that is a valid answer, if you don't think there are good reason to take any position in particular, then you don't have any good reason to reject the KCA


there are many models of the universe that entail a cause, and many other causeless models, do some research and whenever you are ready, let us know which type of models do you find more probably true

 

[Sparhafoc]

the difference is that it this case there is a third option, namely I have never beat my wife.

TADAAAAA!

Well done, LEROY.

This is how you respond to a loaded question.

A loaded question, of course, being one which includes an unjustified assumption.

but in this particular case ether there are only 2 options, ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't.

That's the unjustified assumption - well done for repeating yourself again, just in case anyone hadn't noticed your dishonesty, it's always good to have multiple evidential samples.

so A or B?

C, still C. Going to remain C as I already told you. I can tell you again if you like as you seem to think that copying and pasting the same thing is going to result in something different occurring:

I understand you are mentally restricted to thinking in binary, LEROY, but I am not so handicapped. Ergo, I rejected your binary, and I reject it now. Also, I will continue to reject it each time you repeat it while ignoring my previous rejection.

Ignoring what I say and pretending I didn't answer just makes you a troll.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The dots in your above sentence communicate about as much information as the rest of your screed will.

Not sure I can agree with that. Those dots convey some critical information, namely that Leroy doesn't grok what an ellipsis is. This is in addition to the information that's conveyed by both the dots and the rest of the text, that pertaining to the paucity of Leroy's competence.

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
but in this particular case ether there are only 2 options, ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't.


That's the unjustified assumption - well done for repeating yourself again, just in case anyone hadn't noticed your dishonesty, it's always good to have multiple evidential samples.

ok and please tell me clearly and unambiguously what unjustified is this statement making ?

ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't

DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE?

the unjustified assumption that this statement is makin is that I beat my wife in the past.........this is an example of a clear and direct answer.


no is your turn what unjustified assumption am I making?

ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't

please tell me what is that unjustified assumption, so that I can justify it for you

 

[leroy]

The dots in your above sentence communicate about as much information as the rest of your screed will.

Not sure I can agree with that. Those dots convey some critical information, namely that Leroy doesn't grok what an ellipsis is. This is in addition to the information that's conveyed by both the dots and the rest of the text, that pertaining to the paucity of Leroy's competence.

are you still in the business of correcting atheist?

if so, can you please correct Sparhafoc and explain to him that I am not making any unjustified assumption.

ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't

.

 

[Sparhafoc]

ok and please tell me clearly and unambiguously what unjustified is this statement making ?

I already wrote clearly and unambiguously what is unjustified in that statement in the first post I made refuting it.

Feel free to read what I've written any time it pleases you.

the unjustified assumption that this statement is makin is that I beat my wife in the past.........this is an example of a clear and direct answer.


no is your turn what unjustified assumption am I making?

ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't

please tell me what is that unjustified assumption, so that I can justify it for you

You can't justify that unjustified assumption, LEROY. To do that, you'd need to be a god.

 

[Sparhafoc]

are you still in the business of correcting atheist?

if so, can you please correct Sparhafoc and explain to him that I am not making any unjustified assumption.

ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't

.

Why would Hack do that when he is just as competent at seeing a false dilemma as me? Hack's in the business of learning about which of our assumptions are true, LEROY, he doesn't care if he's talking to a theist or an atheist because that's one of those silly prejudices you package people in.

It's got nothing to do with the universe, LEROY. Hack's expert knowledge isn't relevant to this conundrum, although his personal knowledge is more than adequate.

There are many ways that the universe could have come to be without there being anything we could identify as a cause. We even have things inside our own universe (the set on which you are really drawing observations from) for which 'cause' is a problematic assumption.

You are trying to use the same error as WLC, but given that you are supposedly engaging in simple talk for little silly me, why can't you address what I've already written about it? I've already dismantled this argument before you made it.

If you can't read what I write, then it's your fault for failing to address my argument.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Not sure I can agree with that. Those dots convey some critical information, namely that Leroy doesn't grok what an ellipsis is.

Well, at least it's consistent then as it fits with not groking what words mean, or the requirement of reading what someone else has written prior to declaring victory.

This is in addition to the information that's conveyed by both the dots and the rest of the text, that pertaining to the paucity of Leroy's competence.

Having just shared that Feynman with you, the notion of faster but dumber springs to mind, it even has dots to convey information to the most simple.

 

[leroy]

You can't justify that unjustified assumption, LEROY. To do that, you'd need to be a god.

which assumption?

you said that this statement has an unjustified assumption

ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't

please tell me what assumption is that.

 

[leroy]

There are many ways that the universe could have come to be without there being anything we could identify as a cause. We even have things inside our own universe (the set on which you are really drawing observations from) for which 'cause' is a problematic assumption.

.

however it is still a fact that ether the universe had a cause, or it didn't, so which of these 2 possibilities do you find more probably true?

 

[Sparhafoc]

If you can't read what I write, then it's your fault for failing to address my argument.

There are many ways that the universe could have come to be without there being anything we could identify as a cause. We even have things inside our own universe (the set on which you are really drawing observations from) for which 'cause' is a problematic assumption.

 

[Sparhafoc]

however it is still a fact ...

Wrong. Invalid assumption. Rejected. See above.

 

[Sparhafoc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part).

It's about sets.

Inside our universe, most things that occur have a cause, and the occurrence is an effect of that preceding event.

Fine. Even though we know it's not true of everything, and that there are events in our universe that are uncaused, we can still fairly generalize that, at least in our Middle World, effects follow causes.

The problem - the one LEROY won't ever address regardless of how many times its written - is that one cannot make the assumption that just because a statement is true for the component pieces, that it's true for the whole. One set is 'things inside the universe' and the other is 'the universe'.

When talking about the origin of the universe, treating it as if it is in the category of 'things inside the universe' is dysfunctional. Clearly, it cannot be by logic alone.

However, we're also talking about a universe - a fabric woven from laws. So the claim LEROY wants to make necessitates those laws operating on the universe from the instant of its origins, as if those same laws are in something greater than the universe, as if the universe is inside another universe. As such, it's also positing extra metaphysics which are not evident, which cannot be evident, and therefore is an assumption. I do not see any reason to accept that assumption. I do not believe anyone possesses special knowledge with regards to this, and as such, I reject the assumption very firmly indeed. I declare it faulty, and the repetition of a faulty claim is just too much confidence combined with not enough genuine thought.

So I wonder how long we'll play the 'YOU WILL RESPECT MY BINARY' <-> 'NO' game?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

lets start with a simpler question.....................based on the evidence that we have to date, would say that the universe had a cause?


a) Yes

b) No


based on the evidence which do you think is more probably true? a or b?

I answered that question before. Dandan/leroy did not understand my answer. I see history is repeating itself.

:lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

I answered that question before. Dandan/leroy did not understand my answer. I see history is repeating itself.

:lol:

Any history that includes LEROY seems to have that recursive characteristic. LEROY appears to think that repetition surpasses any other form of persuasion, which is why he only uses that.

Regardless, my option will remain C no matter how hard LEROY shows off his skills at the game Twister. And it will remain C until there's reason to lend any position credence. LEROY, of course, decides on what to accept based on whether it offers his preconceived beliefs succor or whether it presents a challenge to those beliefs.

Not that it should matter for a fundie. If the universe was caused, then LEROY can squeeze in his Bronze Age belief, and if the universe wasn't caused then LEROY can squeeze in his Bronze Age belief. Both A and B are just sources of apologetics. Thus the binary.