Arguments for God's Existence

[Sparhafoc]

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

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

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?

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.

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?

I wont have a discussion where I adopt a clear position and you adopt a position of eternal skepticism, if you what to have a discussion with you would have to adopt a world view regarding the cause of the universe and show that your world view is better than mine.

so my position is that the universe (space time and everything in it) had a cause, whenever you are ready please feel free to provide an alterative position and explain why is that position better than mine.

We could go on and on here providing examples of how you've repeatedly recapitulated your argument from ignorance, plus we could show the dozen (at least) times you tried to shift the burden of proof, either by lying that my position was B (which it isn't) or by pretending that I need to affirm C (which I don't) when the reality is that your false dichotomy was immediately busted, and the answer I gave was 'I don't know' which also includes you not knowing, or in fact, anyone knowing because.... *drum roll* there's no evidence whatsoever to be had about the state in which the universe began to exist.

Can't grasp that LEROY? That's why you are struggling here with people who can grasp that.

The truth is though that you can grasp it, you recognize it as a valid rebuttal, but your ego won't let you deal honestly with people here because to you we're all dirty heathens and you're on a mission from Gawd. You know my rejection of your claim is valid, which is why you spent 20+ pages slinging shit to see if you could obfuscate the fact that your argument failed at the first hurdle. All that time you spent self-gratifying in public was shown to be empty-headed hubris.

Go on - pop another Russian Doll - this thread is eternal testimony to your terminal unwillingness to engage with even a modicum of honesty.


Oh and my 'world view' is superior to yours LEROY - my world view entails disallowing my ego to convince me that my ability to understand is the only valid arbiter of truth.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Let's play "Leroy's semantic game" and see if we can make Leroy understand why you can't simply a word use to mean whatever you want without looking like a moron, especially when you use it to mean something opposite.

granted, not everything requires a cause

- So Leroy "granted, "not everything requires a cause"
- In other words: "granted, some things do not require a cause" (not everything = some things)
- More precisely: "granted, some things are uncaused" (do not require a cause = uncaused)
- Semantically, let's use a synonym of uncaused: "granted, some things are causeless" (uncaused = causeless)
Now for "Leroy's oblivious semantic trick"!

I am using "caused from nothing" and "causeless" interchangeably

Since "causeless = caused from nothing" and are interchangable:
"granted, some things are caused by nothing."

Leroy granted that some things are caused by nothing.

I did provided 3 reasons as for why the idea of "nothing" producing "something" is absurd, or at least implausible.

Leroy granted an absurd idea.

And despite being repeatedly pointed out that his logic is flawed and as we can now see, called absurd by Leroy himself, he still refuses to demonstrate its soundness yet ask that we accept it.

Now, as he wont to do, Leroy will complain about semantics but playing loose semantics is how he got himself into this hole.

granted that would be absurd, that is why I am not arguing that God came form nothing.

Too bad Leroy didn't get it right away. So if god being "caused from nothing" is absurd, then god must have been caused by something.

Or is there another possibility? (Let's see if Leroy gets it now...)

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Every point relating to the KCA, which Carroll addressed, was not answered by Craig in a coherent manner.

can you provide an example?

Why don't you watch the video again and see for yourself - it's not that long after all.

Besides, the commentator points out the flaws in Craig's responses - and I pointed out one in that post.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Wha....?

Try again and this time aim for more content less sneer because what you said is barely legible.

I do not object to it being said that my posts are sometimes full of sneer and are barely legible. But Dragan Glas isn't a fucking baby and is smart enough to figure out what I am talking about. About 5% of the time he will actually reply with an answer that I will find to be not completely oblivious.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I do not object to it being said that my posts are sometimes full of sneer and are barely legible. But Dragan Glas isn't a fucking baby and is smart enough to figure out what I am talking about. About 5% of the time he will actually reply with an answer that I will find to be not completely oblivious.

Neither smartness nor maturity can make sense of something that is insensate. You might find that Dragan Glas writes more useful posts if you provided something coherent for him to work from.

In my experience, James routinely posts with incisive comments indicating a breadth of knowledge that few human beings would match.

 

[Dustnite]

I do not object to it being said that my posts are sometimes full of sneer and are barely legible. But Dragan Glas isn't a fucking baby and is smart enough to figure out what I am talking about. About 5% of the time he will actually reply with an answer that I will find to be not completely oblivious.

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

 

[MarsCydonia]

I couldn't be bothered to slog through all 32 pages of this tripe, but I've always disliked the KCA because it doesn't even argue their position, to my understanding Leroy i arguing for the Christian god, but even if we grant every single aspect of the KCA he still doesn't get there, not even close, we could just as well use the KCA to conclude Cthulu

I do not think we could conclude Cthulhu with William Lane's Craig KCA as he tries it though we could certainly conclude his great-great-grandfather Azathoth

 

[thenexttodie]

[

In my experience, James routinely posts with incisive comments indicating a breadth of knowledge that few human beings would match.

I think out of all of the people in on this forum, he would be the most interesting contributor to meet in person.

 

[leroy]

I think I can speak for anyone over an I.Q. of 3 here when I point out to Leroy, again, that there is a difference between commenting a criticism and answering a criticism.

Why does Leroy play these semantic games?
And since Leroy likes to play / complain about semantics, "ignored" is used in the sense of "did not legitimately answer" rather than "commented on"
I clarified what I meant :lol:

however it is still a fact that you falsely accused me for ignoring something, are you ever going to apologize for your false accusation?

Example #1: Leroy makes an exception because he asserts this exception and proclaims "I'm not going to demonstrate the soundness of my logic about causation here! Start another thread!"
Because, as we all know, causation is irrelevant to the KCA :lol:

So here we have the first example of Leroy running away answering the criticism that "Leroy's inductive logic" isn't sound but arbitrary.

I am not running away, all I am doing is suggesting to you to open a new thread if you what to talk about stuff that has nothing to do with the KCA

]And has Leroy ran from repeatedly, that notion is completely shit. I guess Leroy expects me to repeat myself here?
"The idea that god was caused from nothing is absurd, or at least implausible" since causeless and caused from nothing is interchangeable

Too bad Leroy didn't get it right away. So if god being "caused from nothing" is absurd, then god must have been caused by something

the reason why it is absurd is because you are treating nothing as if it where "something, with causal powers, that can produce effects"

treating "nothing" as if it where "something" is simply absurd, "nothing" by definition can not be something.

Let's see if I can dumb down William Lane Craig for Leroy, a lot down :lol:
"Before god created the universe at the big bang, there was literally nothing, no space, no time, nothing (1')". Is that dumbed down enough for you Leroy?

I already corrected you and explained that WLC is talking about the big bang, and its implications (if you are an atheist) you are taking WLC out of context.


so do you agree with this statement?

treating "nothing" as if it where "something" is simply absurd, "nothing" by definition can not be something.

[/quote]
yes or no?



I wont get a direct answer right?

 

[leroy]

I couldn't be bothered to slog through all 32 pages of this tripe, but I've always disliked the KCA because it doesn't even argue their position, to my understanding Leroy i arguing for the Christian god, but even if we grant every single aspect of the KCA he still doesn't get there, not even close, we could just as well use the KCA to conclude Cthulu

and we could use transitional fossils to prove Lamarkism, but that doesn't change the fact that TF represent strong evidence for the current theory of evolution.


BTW ..... Cthulu is not suppose to be timeless, spaceless inmaterial etc. so the argument wouldn't apply

 

[leroy]

, plus we could show the dozen (at least) times you tried to shift the burden of proof,

asking you to justify your affirmations is not shifting the burden proof.

 

[Sparhafoc]

, plus we could show the dozen (at least) times you tried to shift the burden of proof,

asking you to justify your affirmations is not shifting the burden proof.

No, trying to pretend people are taking the affirmative and them demanding they perform on command is shifting the burden of proof.

That happened for around 10 pages, so your deflection is - as with everything else - not going to fool anyone. But still you try, eh?

 

[leroy]

Every point relating to the KCA, which Carroll addressed, was not answered by Craig in a coherent manner

Why don't you watch the video again and see for yourself - it's not that long after all.

Besides, the commentator points out the flaws in Craig's responses - and I pointed out one in that post.

Kindest regards,

James

I see, you are unable to provide a single example where WLC answered in a non coherent manner

 

[Sparhafoc]

Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Again, a position like mine (C as in my signature below because LEROY kept lying about it) - there is no requirement to substantiate. Instead, the claimant; the dude ineffectually forwarding the affirmative argument, can show via evidence or argumentation that it IS known, and therefore that the null position is invalid.

Of course, LEROY, you are incapable of doing that which not only showed your inability to engage in honest, logical discourse, but also provided ample insight into the reasons why you believe what you believe.

In reality, you don't need the KCA. Your argument is 'God exists because I believe God exists' - and consequently no one can dispute that notion as it is restricted to an internal process. Of course, it can't convince anyone else, which for some perverse reason, you seem desperate to do. Silly little man.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I see, you are unable to provide a single example where WLC answered in a non coherent manner

Instead providing an entire video of WLC answering in a non-coherent manner because WLC is pig-ignorant about physics.

But but but you didn't jump the hoop as ordered by LEROY, so LEROY will ignore everything in his typical manner which shows he is intellectually and morally bankrupt and therefore incapable of holding a reasoned discussion with adults.

Next up, he'll pretend his position hasn't been destroyed and reassert whatever that thread of wibble was.

Go get a blog already, LEROY - or at least get laid for fuck's sakes.

 

[MarsCydonia]

however it is still a fact that you falsely accused me for ignoring something, are you ever going to apologize for your false accusation?

What is a fact is that I accused Leroy exactly of what I accused him of: Leroy running away from answering the criticism directed at this arguments. Will Leroy stop deluding himself?

Well the following will provide evidence that he will not.

I am not running away, all I am doing is suggesting to you to open a new thread if you what to talk about stuff that has nothing to do with the KCA

So Leroy claims he is not running away from answering the criticism by... Not answering the criticism where it is direcly explained how it is relevant to the KCA.
Is Leroy suffering from some sort of brain damage?
Will Leroy apologize for falsely stating I made false accusations of him running away from answering criticism?

the reason why it is absurd is because you are treating nothing as if it where "something, with causal powers, that can produce effects"

treating "nothing" as if it where "something" is simply absurd, "nothing" by definition can not be something.

Leroy running away again.

I already corrected you and explained that WLC is talking about the big bang, and its implications (if you are an atheist) you are taking WLC out of context.

And Leroy running away again.

so do you agree with this statement?

treating "nothing" as if it where "something" is simply absurd, "nothing" by definition can not be something.

yes or no?

I wont get a direct answer right?[/quote]
And finally...
Leroy running away again.

Leroy demanding a direct answer when he spent pages and pages running away from doing so? Leroy is deluded if he thinks we'll indulge his hypocrisy.

 

[MarsCydonia]

BTW ..... Cthulu is not suppose to be timeless, spaceless inmaterial etc. so the argument wouldn't apply

And Leroy fails to understand the KCA yet again...

 

[Sparhafoc]

Well past arguments for arguments for god's existence.

I think we're firmly in the territory now of arguments for arguments for arguments for god's existence.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Life is eternal therefore God exists. Jesus said " I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last...."

I am certain.

While you will not accept this as evidence.... the mere confidence a Christian can display is already a blow to the distinctly inconfident atheist.

Further evidence will never be required because the atheist does not possess even a single argument for which he can confidently state Jesus does not exist.

:lol:
Is the mere confidence a muslim display a blow to the christian? How about the confidence of an Hindu? The confidence of a Sikh? The confidence of a Wiccan? And so on?

Confidence as "evidence" is certainly perfect for indoctrinated of one particular set of belief but such a moronic idea to every member of the other sets, or those who have none.

 

[MarsCydonia]

And the response as predicted.... provides zero evidence God does not exist.

This will always be the case.

:lol:
Are you new to how this work?
Zero evidence was provided that Allah, Zeus, Vishna, etc. do not exist.
Zero evidence was provided that god does.

This will always be the case.