DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Atheism and Nonexistence

I quoted you above. Sorry if you are too upset to read. If you are that upset at the fallacy I chose, then lets go with hasty or broad generalization



You are generalizing again. For the record, two instances in a large set are what we call "anecdotal." You are falling into the trap that just because you may believe in something supernatural, that everyone else must as well. Scientists tend to regard supernatural explanations for the universe with suspicion simply because no one has been able to prove their hypothesis using the scientific method. But there are scientists who believe in the Bible and also follow the scientific method. I'm sure they take the Bible much more figuratively than others, but they are there.



Evidence has been discovered in support of abiogenesis, but I know you are wanting irrefutable conclusive evidence. But everyone wants irrefutable conclusive evidence sometimes and we sadly can't get it. Like irrefutable conclusive evidence of an all powerful deity

Would you prefer the children be taught that life formed because Allah wished it into being? I bet that is what is being taught in middle eastern schools. Let me know if you agree.



Common ancestry is far from an assumption. Every new piece of information we find on living things, whether it be from simply how they look and act to deep down genetic analysis backs up common ancestry. Please try again. Claiming that evolution precludes a common designer is either ignorance on your part or a sly lie intended to deceive. Evolution makes no claims on the origins of life, just how we ended up with the rich tapestry we have today.



I normally avoid fighting on peoples words, but since you seem so intent on using great vocabulary, let me clue you in on one. You don't even understand what the word conjecture means. I didn't say that I believed aliens populated Earth, I was providing a tongue in cheek example as regards your prior post. Know what words mean before you use them.



You're absolutely right, you can't prove a negative. However if you do claim something, it is up to you to prove it. In this case, it is not up to me to prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove a negative. It is on YOU to prove your God does. See how that works? Throwing the argument back at atheism isn't logically sincere. The only logically sincere conclusion is to provide, for all of us on Dawgtalkers, your proof that God exists. Until you can do so, atheism is more scientific on the basis of the phrase "The absence of evidence is evidence."



Nice of you to bookend your post with another fallacy, this time a loaded question.

But really your entire post is a fallacy. You are operating outside of the bounds of scientific explanation. You don't care about observing and reporting. All you care about is trying to disprove existing evidence. That is not how scientific arguments work. If someone makes a scientific discovery that you don't agree with, then you make a new experiment that disproves it. Until you can do so, the scientific discovery remains valid.

Quote- I quoted you above. Sorry if you are too upset to read. If you are that upset at the fallacy I chose, then lets go with hasty or broad generalization smile Unquote

LOL. Who said I was upset. I don't get upset about such things. I was merely pointing out that MOST (which is the word I used) is not synonomous with all. If you don't believe me, look up the word "most" in the dictionary and then look up "all". They don't carry the same meaning. Now go back and read the post you quoted again and tell me if I said MOST or ALL

quote- You are generalizing again. For the record, two instances in a large set are what we call "anecdotal."

No I am not generalizing because "widespread" does not mean all or universal either. And just because I only mentioned two doesnt mean that there aren't many more.

quote- Evidence has been discovered in support of abiogenesis

In support that abiogenesis OCCURRED? Sorry, but there is no evidence to support that it occurred. There are experiments that show that amino acids can be produced in a laboratory, but that is not abiogenesis, nor is that UNGUIDED abiogenesis.

Christians believe in a form of abiogenesis, but they believe in an abiogenesis through intelligent design. And any life that you might produce from non living matter in a laboratory (which hasnt been done yet) would be abiogenesis through intelligent design as well.

quote- Would you prefer the children be taught that life formed because Allah wished it into being? I bet that is what is being taught in middle eastern schools. Let me know if you agree.

No, just don't teach children conjectures like "we know abiogenesis occurs because life exists" which is circular reasoning.

quote- Claiming that evolution precludes a common designer is either ignorance

Never said that. I said Evolution presupposes that the question can only be answered naturalistically. Scott Todd agrees with me.

I will have to respond to the rest in a few minutes, because I have to step away for a few minutes.

If you don't believe in God and don't believe in miracles, then by default, none of it is going to make any sense to you because you are trying to apply logical understanding to how something could happen that is physically impossible without God... I don't know why people choose to fight with you about these things

because we are bored and have nothing else better to do with our time.

Continued- I normally avoid fighting on peoples words, but since you seem so intent on using great vocabulary, let me clue you in on one. You don't even understand what the word conjecture means. I didn't say that I believed aliens populated Earth, I was providing a tongue in cheek example as regards your prior post. Know what words mean before you use them.

Sure I know what conjecture means...an opinion or conclusion based on insufficient knowledge. Now if you don't believe that alien seeding is a valid opinion, why bring it up?

quote- You're absolutely right, you can't prove a negative. However if you do claim something, it is up to you to prove it.

Eggsactly. So since you claim that there is evidence supporting abiogenesis occurred, please prove that there is evidence.

quote- In this case, it is not up to me to prove that God doesn't exist. I can't prove a negative. It is on YOU to prove your God does.

I never set out to prove God exists. What I am doing is exposing the hypocrisy of statements like "the universe can and will create itself" by scientists who make such claims without being able to prove it. So why don't you put the same standards on them that you do on Christians? Because you have double standards.

You say things like there is evidence to support abiogenesis occurred. Can you provide it?

quote-Nice of you to bookend your post with another fallacy, this time a loaded question.

Really? So it is not permitted to ask about the origin of matter, even if you give a multiple choice question that includes other? How is that a loaded question

Common tactic...accuse the opposition of fallacy without supporting the accusation.

So simply asking a multiple choice question about the origin of matter, and even including "other" in which you can answer any way you want (even I don't know) is a loaded question? Or are you saying it is a loaded question because you can't answer it?

Because no one can give an answer to the origin of matter the Kosmos, but yet they still say that there is no evidence for God.

The Kosmos itself is evidence that there is a God. Even if someone can come up with an alternative explanation, they cannot prove it. Yet they take these hypothetical explanations and call it evidence, while excluding a theistic hypothesis altogether. People claim the Miller Urey experiment is "evidence for abiogenesis". The only evidence it provides is that a gooey tarry solution with some amino acids can be produced in a laboratory under carefully guided circumstances. That is an infinite distance from giving evidence for abiogenesis (amino acids are not life), and even further from being evidence for unguided abiogenesis

...and then people bring up evolution. Evolution is a non issue as far as I'm concerned. Evolution just means that life forms changes over time. That's all that can be scientifically observed. Big whoopie

I'm not a mormon or latter day saint, so what does that article matter?

Actually, evolution is not that changes can occur over time, but that changes in kind can occur over time. No one argues that micro-evolution occurs. However, macro-evolution, where changes in kind occur, like a fish becoming a water buffalo, or a lizard becoming a bird, or a walrus becoming a dog ...... those are the kind that the debate about evolution are over.

why did you respond? i simply posted an article.

you realize we can discuss other religions in this thread about atheism, right?

you understand christianity isn't the only one, right?

like a Browns fan becoming a Steelers fan

Only entering this discussion one time:

I am at peace with the way I have chosen to live a Life with Jesus in my heart.

It is truly a blessing in so many ways .....for me.

To know that I live my life the way I do because God loves me and sent his son to die for me.......for me.......is incredibly humbling and offers the most fufillment I could ever ask for. To know that at the end of my life on earth is just the beginning of my life with My Lord and Savior is the ultimate utopia!

The grace that is bestowed upon me because God loves me transcends all else. I'm blessed to understand and will pray (whether they want me to or not, it's not their choice) for the misguided and lost that they may experience the blessing of God's love and grace in their life.

Peace

I apologize. You made a valid point that not all religions are right, which I agree with.

Exactly! Great post.

Nice post. God bless

Again, I apologize you don't know what generalization means.



And what does general mean?



So by your own admission, you were generalizing. I normally don't care to wage dictionary fights, but because you seem so intent on using big boy words improperly I felt somewhat compelled to explain this to you.



There is plenty of evidence, but you are most certainly unwilling to investigate it on your own time. I could provide a deal of data regarding long protein formation, synthesis of complex molecules in space, hydrothermal vent hypothesis, and all of this, yet you would only consider irrefutable evidence. Science is about evidence to be sure. Irrefutable evidence is of course the best! Who doesn't love it! But you don't need irrefutable evidence to back up a theory or hypothesis. All you need is the scientific method and to have the experiments you perform stand up to other experiments that try to disprove it (sometimes by accident!) To claim you need irrefutable evidence is moving the goalposts. Try again.



You are suggesting that scientific experiments can't be science, due to manipulation by the person conducting the experiment. But every experiment is set up, conducted, and variables introduced by an observer. We can *confirm* some experiments using natural data, but there is currently no way to do so in the cases of some phenomena such as abiogenesis. What you are asking for is something no scientific experiment can accommodate. This does not mean that the existing theory is false, only that we don't have a natural data basis for verification. Big difference.



You're getting upset at a childrens text is on rocky ground because we often build on simple concepts and expand upon them later. We may teach kids that Earth's gravity is 9.8m/s^2 but we may not explain to them how that can change depending on relativity factors because it is considered too specialized, or how we came up with that number, until they take more advanced courses.

We can jump into the evidence behind abiogenesis such as the experiments used to observe life synthesis from amino acids or how radiation can work to jump start lifes potential, but for most kids in elementary school or even non-AP high school courses, this is considered too specialized and advanced. So we simplify the statement in the interest of accommodating the students realm of knowledge. To use your complaint in other disciplines, we should be complaining that trigonometry isn't taught to 1st graders. Preposterous.



Beautiful quote mining job yet again. Perhaps if you included his very next statement, that Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism., you would realize that you are quote mining. Besides, to claim that Scott Todd is the authority on evolution is yet again, fallacious.



I'm amused that you took my statement to mean that I believe aliens exist. I never claimed aliens exist, so no conjecture occurred. Sorry, you still have trouble using big boy words. I will admit to loving exegesis though.



See above.



Oh you're "just asking questions" now? This fable that you aren't setting out to prove god exists may be a fun little story you tell other creationists around the dinner table, but your innocent batting of the eyes does not fool me. For the record, I have no problem with people trying to argue that God is real. I have deep reservations about people who deceive to accomplish this, such as yourself.

As for Hawkings quote: I love your attempt to take a quote from Hawking on highly theoretical physics and claim it as fact. The universe can and will create itself, within the context of string theory. But string theory is not scientific consensus. This is also another, poorer example of quote mining that is only done to damage Hawking to further your agenda. I find it distasteful.



The question is loaded because it doesn't matter how I answer. If I answer the question you will promptly ignore all the other issues I brought up and focus on that. Which would be fine, if it weren't so blatantly obvious that you are deceiving people for Jesus.

So I did my best to respond to you in a timely fashion, because I do believe it is important to carry a conversation as long as both sides are willing to do so. You can even respond if you wish and I promise I will read it. However, at this point, I do not wish to continue this conversation any further. I wish to explain to both you, and others on this board, why I am doing so. I am sure my words will sound harsh, but it is because I truly believe you are a person of intellect. I find it very difficult to believe that you are doing what you are doing by accident.

So as for the reason I won't converse on this. The reason is because this conversation is evidence that you are either willfully, or through the direction of someone else, being deceptive and manipulative. When someone claims to be a man of science, as you have been, I want to converse with you. When someone claims to be a proponent of ID, I want to listen. Yet I have yet to hear a single scientific claim from you. You haven't told anyone how intelligent design works. Educate us! Let's say for the sake of argument, evolution is wrong. Please show us how intelligent design works.

But that in and of itself isn't being deceitful and manipulative. To be more precise, you have redefined what science is in an effort to undermine existing theory. You have moved the goalposts whenever it has suited you and hope no one will catch you. You have quote mined people in an effort to damage their character, or at least their credentials. You have hand waved away known scientific theory and yet again, hoped that no one would call you on it. You define new words in an attempt to mislead people into believing that creationism vs evolution is a philosophical debate. I never even *heard* of ontological naturalism until you brought it up, and on the small amount of information that I have been able to glean, I do not consider myself one, nor have I knowledge of anyone who has proclaimed to be one. Yet here you are, deceiving people into believing that to believe in evolution means you cannot believe in anything but ontological naturalism, because you quote mined someone.

The bridge you make here between philosophy and science is where your deception is most egregious. By trying to convince people that you must believe in this philosophy to believe in evolution, you apply a false transitive property. Using this false transitive property, you can then claim that scientists are being hostile to religion because they are being philosophical, without evidence. It is unfortunate that scientific truths have emerged which cast doubt on the 6 day creation, but that is *not* a personal attack on religion. It is merely the current status of observation and countless experiments done over decades and centuries. You are trying to make it appear that scientists are out to get the Bible, just like Ray Comfort does. It is devious and frankly you should be ashamed that you have been reduced to spreading falsehoods and half truths in an effort to reach people.

I have no problem talking with those with deeply held convictions about religion, whether it be philosophical or scientific. I have had pages of posts with YTown, DC, and others, and sure they may get heated, or they may get even a bit ugly. But I do not doubt their genuine conviction. You on the other hand, are a charlatan who would rather be a snake in the grass than have a straight up conversation. You pretend that your evidence of intelligent design is rooted in science, yet no scientific method or experiment has been presented. You claim to be a friend of science but then reduce many scientists and their discoveries as being non-scientific. You pervert what people say in an effort to undermine them. I find it sad, but wanted to make sure it was known so others would not be drawn in by your deceit. Let the bounty and virtue of God stand on its own merits. Come out of the shadows and freely proclaim your faith. If you wish to prove God through scientific means then come up with a hypothesis and experiment used to prove his existence. But please do not damage both science and faith by perverting both.

quote- Again, I apologize you don't know what generalization means.

I do know what "generalization" means. I did not generalize. I made an observation based on hundreds of debates and discussions which I have had with atheists as well as formal debates and discussions that I have listened to that really didnt have much to do with science vs religion but rather with Ontological Naturalism vs religion. If making this observation is a fallacy, then I guess whatever I say that Gage doesnt happen to agree with is a fallacy.

quote- And what does general mean?

What dictionary is that from? I think this definition is more accurate...

from Merriam Webster- a general statement : a statement about a group of people or things that is based on only a few people or things in that group.

I did not mention a few "things", I mentioned a few "CATEGORIES" that would include MANY things.

A. Arguments based on Naturalistic assumptions.

b. Arguments based on questionable exegesis of the Bible by atheists and agnostics.

c. Arguments based on hypotheses and theories that do not have strong evidence to support them.

A-C would include dozens, hundreds, or even more possible arguments...

Now I will make a challenge to you...I mentioned three or four types of arguments including the one's above. Can you name one scientific argument against the Bible that does not fit into one of the following categories.

a. Arguments based on Naturalistic assumptions. (like Ontological Naturalism

b. Arguments that are based on a questionable exegesis of the Biblical text. (like claiming that the Bible says the earth is a certain age)

c. Arguments based on hypotheses and theories (or tongue in cheeks like you mentioned)that do not have strong evidence (like abiogenesis)

If I am guilty of generalization, you should be able to come up with something.

Now I know about the "argument from silence" that claims that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of supernaturalism . But if you claim that the science excludes supernaturalism for the existence of the Kosmos, you are arguing for a purely naturalistic explanation for the existence of the Kosmos.

If you don't agree, please give me one possible explanation for the existence of the Kosmos that is neither purely naturalistic nor partly supernatural.

I await your answers.

Since you are saying many things, I will respond to one false accusation at a time.

quote by Yep above:

"You never hear in the news, 200 killed today when Atheist rebels..."

Not worded that way, but The U.S.S.R. was officially an Aetheist State. And I'm sure they killed many Agnostics (and whoever else irritated Stalin).

Oh, you mean Hawking didnt really mean what he said? Or that he didnt really believe it?

Who said this one?

'Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

Or this...

Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can.

LOL, couldn't possibly be that I believe what I am saying, right?



Because I don't need to make a scientific claim or claims to say that Ontological Naturalism is bogus (and that disagreeing with it is not the same as disagreeing with science.)

I'm sorry that you are confusing categories. My critique was of Ontological Naturalism, not science. SO if my critique is of O.N, (which is not a science), I don't need to produce scientific statements to back up what I say. If you want to argue for the validity of O.N (what I will call Ontological Naturalism from henceforth), the burden of proof is on you, not me.

So I was not arguing for the existence of God in the post that you replied to. I was arguing against O.N. So there is no burden of proof on me. If anyone wants to disagree with what I said about O.N, then the burden of proof is on them to positively defend it.

You're not even talking about the same thing that I am talking about. You look confused.

The statement that "we know abiogenesis happened because life exists" is at best a circular argument and at worst a downright lie.

Here is another circular argument

a. Simiarities existing between two species indicates a common ancester.

b. Similarities between these two species do exist.

c. Therefore there was a common ancestor.

IF that's not a circular argument, I don't know what is.



In other words, believe in supernaturalism in your personal life if you want to, but you must strictly excludde it from science even if ALL THE DATA points to it. Hmmmmmmm......

You naturalists don't like us questioning your apriori assumptions and presuppositions, so you resort to ad hominems (like accusing me of dishonesty), when we do.

Not a good look, sir.

lol, I guess so. I would take their lack of religion with a grain of salt.

That's offensive to all polyatheists, including christians.



Checkmate, atheists!

It's that last part, about cycles and deja vu' that rubbed me... I mean, if this were true, think of what that means for us Browns fans!!! Talk a bout a bleak existence indeed!

Well if your that bored you could kill some time praying

That would be time murder.

I know some beleive in Evolition, or X scientific method, or Y religion, however in all of this many of you are missing a key point. That point is:

THERE IS NO ONE SIMPLE TRUTH

There is a lot science can't explain, before the Kings Lists of the 1st Dynasty of Egypt, the Writing of the Chinese, and the Sumerians that came shortly after, human activity on this planet is eerly quiet.

dating methods have margins of error, they also DO NOT take into account every possibility, a dating method can be 100% accurate and still wrong.

How?

Simple, if we are living in the Paradox time line i fully and 100% believe that we are, then the dating on all the scientific dating methods saying the Earth is 6 billion years old, and human stuff is 100,000 years old would be accurate yet still 100% wrong.

As even though they may be that old, Time has shifted in a way science can not ever even possible account for because they will never know the exact moment the timeline was broken or altered therefore its impossible to ever know at this point. Find out or getting out of such a Paradox is impossible when you have "our future selves" ensuring the timeline always ends at a predetermined time to start the same cycle over again which is in pointed fact a form of immortality.

there are issues that are never brought up because they are not mainstream. There is a lot of evidence in not only the Bible, but other ancient writings that attest and hint to these truths, there are structures built by Ancients that we can't build today with Modern Technology(if were really all that modern that is)...there are many truths, science is just simply one tool, I don't however see science as a tool for determining the validity or non-validity of any religious belief, nor do i see religion determining the validity or non-validity of science as they are two completely different spheres that people mistakenly try to intermingle.

We will be having this same exact conversation again at the same exact time when the timeline is reset. It appears that whomever, (I think people from the future, but i could be wrong on that) won't let us advance too far technologically or is purposely slowing us down.

We must hit a point of no return somewhere in the future where were faced with extinction or whatever because of it, so its my opinion those folks from the future created this paradox as a form of immortality and ensure our race doesn't end.

As i said, there is no one single truth and when you really start to measure all the stuff that is "unexplained" and the stuff science has no interest in addressing, it becomes clearly apparent that someone or something(i think someone) is steering the events of human history as we know it from what has been written and that we can look back on.

its just my 2 cents, and im fine with that. i'd rather exist in a paradox then not exist at all.

The correct term for Christians and others is MONOTHEIST.

Saying that Christians are polyatheists would be, for example, saying something like "the fact that Christians dont believe in so and so god(s) makes them polyatheist." But no matter how many gods Christians don't believe in, they are not atheists in ANY SENSE. For they believe in one God. Atheism and monotheism mutually exclusive.

Is monarchy synonomous with poly anarchy? Let me know

So you have used a false category.

But does God actually keep the Australians there?

God does, using the wedge strategy. Now in the interest of science, we don't call this a wedge. We call it an "intelligent chock." I can't provide evidence it exists using the scientific method, but I read on the internet that the scientific method is rubbish anyway. Checkmate!

But seriously though, there's a more pressing problem on my hands. My dog watched "All dogs go to Heaven," and now he's being very argumentative. Any advice?

Yea, stop posting bigoted pictures..

#alldogsmatter

I apologize for triggering you with a micro aggression. I won't offend you anymore with photos of dogs wearing camo hats. Let us build a safe space, starting with this factual photograph that reinforces your world view:

If atheists and agnostics are so smart, why do they make fun of Christians by making memes and posts using arguments that Christians don't use, and then think they actually said something?

It happens whenever they get their heads handed to them in a legitimate discussion. It's called being a poor loser.

Peace LA.

That's a fact.

I was looking at memes online, and 99% of the ones that mock people are made by atheists, antitheists, and agnostics...and 99% of those were deeply fallacious.

Peace from the Prince of Peace to you, brother

I've read the back and forth between you and Gage and I admit that you do a pretty good job of debating and an even better job of obfuscation on the points that you can't or don't want to answer . Towards the end though you were like the boxer who was outclassed and just wanted to clinch .

I made numerous points that he did not answer? What did I obfuscate on, and what did I not answer. Since he thinks I am dishonest and said he wouldnt discuss it with me anymore (I take his charge of calling me dishonest an attempt at suppressing what I am saying through ad hominems and false accusation.

Did you read the several posts I posted after he withdrew? (of course I am going to answer his false accusations and also his fallacious arguments)

Why don't you tell me whatI failed to answer, and I will be glad to answer whatever you bring up. Also, since you think I was trying to clinch instead of actually interacting, I will repost the posts that he didnt answer and see if you do any better than he did. If you want to, you can back up your words and assertions.

So what do you say?