Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

It is pointless for you to demand evidence that you cannot understand and can only deny. Photoshop is more than enough.

So does image with Jesus resurrecting made in Photoshop count as evidence for the resurection?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So does image with Jesus resurrecting made in Photoshop count as evidence for the resurection?

Nope. And you should know the reason why.

 

[leroy]

You said more than that. You wrote, "In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)" I asked why an omnipotent God would need to fine tune a universe. I argued that the very concept implies that God is constrained to set the constants of the universe according to rules that transcend its power, just like man.

And it´s based on a straw man, nobody is saying that God needs to Fine Tune the universe………….it just happens to be the case that he decided to create a universe that requires FT, (he could have done it otherwise) a universe that doesn’t require FT is logically possible and could have been done by God (but he didnt)

I don't know why you put that in quotes. It look like it's your words. Furthermore, it's not a valid argument. The conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it (non sequitur). There is nothing there that prevents a multiverse from existing, or from producing a universe just like this one.

I am not claiming that multiverse cant exist, just that if there is a multiverse where each universe has it´s own values (such that we happened to live in a life permitting universe by chance) the universe would be dominated by Bolzman Brains. (BB)

BB would be the most popular type of observer, which means that more likely than not, you would have to be a BB.

BB = An isolated brain product of a random fluctuation that is currently imagining (dreaming) that he is a human living in a planet named earth and that is having a conversation in a forum.

Or to put it this way, it would be much more likely to say that you live in a simpler universe with simpler life forms and that all the complexity that you observe just a dream, soon you will wake up just to see the simple universe that surrounds you.

 

[leroy]

Nope. And you should know the reason why.

Ok so we don’t have evidence that stegosaurus ever existed. All we have are testimonies from people who claim to have seen (and study) the fossils, and Photoshop images…………… as far as I know testimonies nor Photoshop images count as evidence.

But perhaps I am wrong perhaps testimonies do count as evidence………..do they?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

nobody is saying that God needs to Fine Tune the universe………….it just happens to be the case that he decided to create a universe that requires FT, (he could have done it otherwise) a universe that doesn’t require FT is logically possible and could have been done by God (but he didnt)

He just so happened to create a universe that requires fine tuning? Does that make sense to you? Why is fine tuning required, and of whom is it required? The only one doing the tuning is a deity that you say was not required to create the universe as it has.

The argument from fine tuning is that the universe had to be fine tuned, and that this required intelligence. You seem to be saying that fine tuning was not required, but was a choice of an omnipotent deity. It just happens to be the case. What makes the universe finely tuned if a deity could have made it any other way? If this universe could have been made differently, then it cannot be called finely tuned.

I am not claiming that multiverse cant exist, just that if there is a multiverse where each universe has it´s own values (such that we happened to live in a life permitting universe by chance) the universe would be dominated by Bolzman Brains. (BB) BB would be the most popular type of observer, which means that more likely than not, you would have to be a BB. BB = An isolated brain product of a random fluctuation that is currently imagining (dreaming) that he is a human living in a planet named earth and that is having a conversation in a forum. Or to put it this way, it would be much more likely to say that you live in a simpler universe with simpler life forms and that all the complexity that you observe just a dream, soon you will wake up just to see the simple universe that surrounds you.

You seem to be claiming without support that a multiverse wouldn't have generated a universe like this one, that if our universe were from a multiverse the minds in it would be fundamentally different than had an intelligent designer created it.

You are also implying that you can determine that you are not such a mind, and offering that as evidence against a multiverse hypothesis. If not, what is your point for raising this matter?

You'll need to make compelling, evidenced arguments for all of those claims if you want them to convince people that require sound arguments before believing. Why would a universe generated by a multiverse be dominated by Boltzmann brains, why is a Boltzmann brain a better explanation for our experience of reality than a brain in a body walking the land eating and breathing, how do you know that you are not exactly what you just described, and if you were, how does that help us decide between a god hypothesis and a multiverse hypothesis?

In other words, how is the Boltzmann brain idea part of any argument about a supernaturalistic versus a naturalistic origins for this universe?

 

[leroy]

He just so happened to create a universe that requires fine tuning? Does that make sense to you? Why is fine tuning required, and of whom is it required? The only one doing the tuning is a deity that you say was not required to create the universe as it has.

The argument from fine tuning is that the universe had to be fine tuned, and that this required intelligence. You seem to be saying that fine tuning was not required, but was a choice of an omnipotent deity. It just happens to be the case. What makes the universe finely tuned if a deity could have made it any other way? If this universe could have been made differently, then it cannot be called finely tuned.

FT was not required in the sense that God could have created a universes with different rules, (such that FT wouldn’t be required)

You seem to be claiming without support that a multiverse wouldn't have generated a universe like this one, that if our universe were from a multiverse the minds in it would be fundamentally different than had an intelligent designer created it.

All I am saying is that if observers are ultimately the result of chance (as the Multiverse hypothesis claims) then the most probable type of observer would also be the most common type of observer.

In this case the most probable type of observer are BB. So unless proven otherwise, you should conclude that you are a BB.

You are also implying that you can determine that you are not such a mind, and offering that as evidence against a multiverse hypothesis. If not, what is your point for raising this matter?

I appealing to a “reduction ad absurdum” since the conclusion “therefore I am a BB” is absurd, then one of the premises has to be wrong.

I am suggesting that we should drop the “we are here by chance premise”

You'll need to make compelling, evidenced arguments for all of those claims if you want them to convince people that require sound arguments before believing. Why would a universe generated by a multiverse be dominated by Boltzmann brains

That is the conclusion that scientists have arrived to.

, how do you know that you are not exactly what you just described,

Seems a reasonable assumption.

In other words, how is the Boltzmann brain idea part of any argument about a supernaturalistic versus a naturalistic origins for this universe?

A bolzman brain is an objection to any “chance hypothesis”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so we don’t have evidence that stegosaurus ever existed. All we have are testimonies from people who claim to have seen (and study) the fossils, and Photoshop images…………… as far as I know testimonies nor Photoshop images count as evidence.

But perhaps I am wrong perhaps testimonies do count as evidence………..do they?

Wrong again. Are you going to insist on approaching this as if you were still in the fifth grade and being an incredibly arrogant fifth grader at that?

If you seriously do not know then you need to learn how to ask questions politely. If you are just going to make rude false statements people will not help you and they are apt to deride you quite a bit.

 

[leroy]

Wrong again. Are you going to insist on approaching this as if you were still in the fifth grade and being an incredibly arrogant fifth grader at that?

If you seriously do not know then you need to learn how to ask questions politely. If you are just going to make rude false statements people will not help you and they are apt to deride you quite a bit.

Ok so where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed? Testimonials claims and assertions dont count as evidence (or do they?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed? Testimonials claims and assertions dont count as evidence (or do they?)

Did you think that was polite? It wasn't. And you really need to apologize for your prior bad behavior as well. I can explain it to you, but right now I have no motivation.

 

[Ella S.]

Nope, since you just made several unevidenced assumptions about the nature of the deity you're arguing for, these are called begging the question fallacies, and it is a basic principle of logic, that nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains a known logical fallacy. So your first sentence made your argument illogical.

It was not my intention to make assumptions about the nature of any deity; I was attempting to define what "God" means for the sake of discussion. I imagine that it is an uncontroversial definition to the OP and so it would probably be considered common knowledge for the sake of debate with them.

I do point out in my post that this is not the only model of God out there, but I was not debating other models of God.

 

[leroy]

Did you think that was polite? It wasn't. And you really need to apologize for your prior bad behavior as well. I can explain it to you, but right now I have no motivation.

In fact I do owe you an apology.


Originally I thought that your refusal to provide evidence was exclusive for "religious stuff "

Now i understand that you don't have something personal against religion , your refusal to provide evidence is on all topics.

My apologies for miss judging you....

 

[Subduction Zone]

In fact I do owe you an apology.


Originally I thought that your refusal to provide evidence was exclusive for "religious stuff "

Now i understand that you don't have something personal against religion , your refusal to provide evidence is on all topics.

My apologies for miss judging you....

You just demonstrated that you can't be serious. If you want to be treated like a joke that is fine for me. You were making ridiculous claims and had no evidence for them. I offered to explain to you how you were wrong if you could be polite. You failed at that. Now you appear to be making false accusations and possibly breaking the rules of the forum.

What I do not understand is why is reality so threatening to you that it makes you unable to engage in polite discourse.

 

[Sheldon]

Ow please!!!! It's all PHOTOSHOP!!

FAKE NEWS!!!11!!11eleventyone





yes, it's deeply unsettling.

Yes The Natural History Museum is known for utilising photoshop to defraud members of the public, I mean no scientists would call them on it obviously. Then again you and I don't think scientists are being fooled by Beelzebub.

 

[Sheldon]

That simply shows your lack of understanding of FT.

To say that gravity is FT simply means that if gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker, life would have been impossible.

I know exactly what it means, it's you who is leaping to the unevidenced SUBJECTIVE assumption it means there is a "fine tuner". That subjective assumption represents ignorance of what it means.

1 this is objectively true, or in any case it would be objectively wrong (there is nothing subjective there)

Of course there is, the subjective claim that a narrow set of parameters makes it so unlikely it demonstrates a divine creator, THAT is pure subjective assumption.

2 this is true independently if there are other universes

It is only true that the universe has a very narrow set of parameters that if changed even a miniscule amount, would make the carbon based life we see on earth impossible. How do you know any other kind of universe is even possible, how do you know life as we see it, is the only kind of life that is possible, these are just two obvious assumptions inherent in your subjective assumption the universe had to have a fine tuner deity.

So if you don’t understand the FT argument, then you should adopt a position of agnosticism “I don’t know if the argument is good or not, because I don’t understand it”

I do understand it, it is you who can't see the subjective conclusion you are reading into the term. Like people who think the big bang involved an actual bang, or people who think survival of the fittest refers to physical fitness or brute strength. Now you owe me one irony meter, new in the box please.

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know it´s authentic?

All you have is testimonials from people who claim that it is authentic-….. and testominies are ot evidence (are they?)

I'm not a creationist, so I have no vested interest in denying scientific facts.

 

[Sheldon]

Really so videos and animations made in Photoshop are now evidence?

Not alone, no, but this is not a creationist "museum" we are talking about.

 

[Sheldon]

Again how do you know that any of the 80 specimens are authentic?...... there is no evidence

Except for assertions and testimonies from people that claim to have found and studied the fossil, buuuuuuuuuuut as far as I know assertions are not evidence.

Or perhaps I am wrong, perhaps testimonies are evidence………… ¿are testimonies evidence?

Science does not base it's findings on anecdotal testimony, this tired old creationist canard is fooling no one. Go the NHM and accuse them of fakery, demand they show you the evidence. Museums in good standing label any parts of displays that are not fossils, but are casts of bones to complete models, in case you didn't know.

 

[Sheldon]

Irrelevant, all I am saying is that an omnipotent God (if he exists) can create gravity (and other constants) ,

So hypothetically, if something had limitless power, it can probably do some stuff.

Profound....

If Harry Potter were real, and omniscient, he could have created the universe. What do I win?

 

[Valjean]

You just demonstrated that you can't be serious. If you want to be treated like a joke that is fine for me. You were making ridiculous claims and had no evidence for them. I offered to explain to you how you were wrong if you could be polite. You failed at that. Now you appear to be making false accusations and possibly breaking the rules of the forum.

What I do not understand is why is reality so threatening to you that it makes you unable to engage in polite discourse.

He's been given voluminous evidence, but he has a vested interest in denying it. His ego-integrity depends on maintaining his belief in a fantasy world.
He doesn't understand what evidence is, where it comes from, or how to evaluate it.

 

[leroy]

You just demonstrated that you can't be serious. If you want to be treated like a joke that is fine for me. You were making ridiculous claims and had no evidence for them. I offered to explain to you how you were wrong if you could be polite. You failed at that. Now you appear to be making false accusations and possibly breaking the rules of the forum.

What I do not understand is why is reality so threatening to you that it makes you unable to engage in polite discourse.

Do whatever you want, present the evidence or ignore ykur burden

This shouldn't be dependent on how "polite " i am.