Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

[Darkstorn]

" One can use ridiculous atheist logic to dismiss any claim"

Is it a god point to add to the Atheist Method given in one's post #159, please? Right, please?

Regards

The "Atheist method" is an obvious falsehood propagated by a lone theist(Leroy.) I don't understand why you would want to be part of this intentional falsehood with such conviction. It would make you complicit.

Maybe you shouldn't take one biased source's claims at face value. Or you risk being confused as a person who openly propagates falsehoods.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why I keep asking, what type of evidence/observation you would accept…………that you wouldn’t dismiss with “God of the Gaps” or “Spaghetti monster” ………. And you keep avoiding a direct answer.

You need actual evidence. You have been given direct answers. Until you understand the basics it will look to you as if people were just hand waving your "evidence" away.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is that if there is a multiverse and if our universe is just a random member of that multiverse it would be far more likely to conclude that you are a boltzman brain who hegin to exist 3 seconds ago, with false memories and under the illusion of living in a FT universe.

Care to show your work on that?

 

[leroy]

It's going to have to be some kind of demonstration that links God to our reality in such a way that to deny it becomes an act of irrationality, which itself can also be demonstrated to be such to any impartial party. An easy example of something that meets this burden is evidence of gravity. If we had a courtroom within which was being presented gravity as a force of attraction between masses then the evidence that got weighed in for such would be of such a great degree of cogency, with nearly exhaustive predictive and explanatory power (for our day-to-day lives at least) that it would be deemed entirely irrational (and such could definitely be demonstrated by comparing the theory to reality, and demonstrating how closely reality can be modeled, such that it leaves no room for quibble) to reject - UNLESS you could present evidence that AN EVEN BETTER MODEL exists that takes explanation and prediction of "gravity" to an even greater level of fidelity in comparison with real-world activities.

With the importance of what you're talking about when you posit "God" and some kind of universally governing set of rules of conduct, that's the level of compelling-ness you're going to have to provide. Something that cannot rationally be denied, and the contradiction introduced when you do deny it being incredibly apparent. Argumentation and thought exercises simply aren't going to cut it.

Ohh that is just a “gravity of the gaps argument”, we don’t understand why things attract to each other “gravity dun it”

Besides, why gravity? Why not fairies? Or the spaghetti monster?

And finally you have to show that gravity exist before claiming “gravity did it”

See? Using your irrational atheist logic one can dismantle any evidence

you could present evidence that AN EVEN BETTER MODEL exists that takes explanation and prediction of "gravity" to an even greater level of fidelity in comparison with real-world activities.

The answer is “I don’t know” stop shifting the burden proof.

 

[Darkstorn]

Ohh that is just a “gravity of the gaps argument”, we don’t understand why things attract to each other “gravity dun it”

I think you seriously fail at reading comprehension. He was clearly using gravity as an example of a thing evidenced to such a degree, that denying it would be analogous to insanity. Not presenting it as an explanation of any phenomena...

I.E He was telling you that you need evidence with equal predictive power and cogency as the theory of gravity to even being to evidence your god. But you don't have any of that. So you can't.

Besides, why gravity? Why not fairies? Or the spaghetti monster?

Answering this in your own head should give the answer: Because we DO NOT have any evidence for fairies or flying spaghetti monsters. But we do have evidence for gravity. And to deny this evidence is very similar to insanity.

And finally you have to show that gravity exist before claiming “gravity did it”

That's easy: Try to "float" into outer space. When you realize you can't, because you're being pulled towards the center of Earth's gravity, then you'll know it's there.

Then you can move onto Einstein's general relativity.

See? Using your irrational atheist logic one can dismantle any evidence

I think you failed at what you were trying to do. To me it looks like insane troll logic.

The answer is “I don’t know” stop shifting the burden proof.

He's not shifting the burden of proof. You are. You claim you have evidence. I make the claim that if you think physical evidence for god's existence is too much to ask, then you don't have any evidence, and therefore you also don't have any knowledge.

If it's too much to ask for evidence, then it's too much to ask for you to know.

 

[leroy]

I think you seriously fail at reading comprehension. He was clearly using gravity as an example of a thing evidenced to such a degree, that denying it would be analogous to insanity. Not presenting it as an explanation of any phenomena...

I.E He was telling you that you need evidence with equal predictive power and cogency as the theory of gravity to even being to evidence your god. But you don't have any of that. So you can't.



Answering this in your own head should give the answer: Because we DO NOT have any evidence for fairies or flying spaghetti monsters. But we do have evidence for gravity. And to deny this evidence is very similar to insanity.



That's easy: Try to "float" into outer space. When you realize you can't, because you're being pulled towards the center of Earth's gravity, then you'll know it's there.

Then you can move onto Einstein's general relativity.



I think you failed at what you were trying to do. To me it looks like insane troll logic.



He's not shifting the burden of proof. You are. You claim you have evidence. I make the claim that if you think physical evidence for god's existence is too much to ask, then you don't have any evidence, and therefore you also don't have any knowledge.

If it's too much to ask for evidence, then it's too much to ask for you to know.

That's easy: Try to "float" into outer space. When you realize you can't, because you're being pulled towards the center of Earth's gravity, then you'll know it's there.

And how do you know gravity did it? Why no fairies or the spaghetti monster?

I think you failed at what you were trying to do. To me it looks like insane troll logic.

Yes its atheist logic

 

[leroy]

Care to show your work on that?

Sure
Read


Please spot your points of disagreement

 

[Darkstorn]

And how do you know gravity did it? Why no fairies or the spaghetti monster?

Because of general relativity. If that's too complex, sure, we can use Newton. I'd prefer not to, it's inaccurate. But it's enough to show it's there: Planets take their form due to these effects.

Yes its atheist logic

No, it's insane troll logic and you're a liar. You don't know how to ape atheist logic. All you can do is present insane caricatures of it.

/E: Furthermore, that has nothing to do with his or mine post to begin with. The point wasn't that gravity exists. The point was that there's more and better evidence for it than your deity. That's it.

 

[leroy]

You need actual evidence. You have been given direct answers. Until you understand the basics it will look to you as if people were just hand waving your "evidence" away.

Ok so what evidence would you accept that couldn't be dismissed as a God of the gaps? Or spaghetti monster?.......... It seems to me that even if you observe a miracle with your own eyes.... you can dismiss it whith ether god of the gaps or flying spaghetti monster

 

[Darkstorn]

Ok so what evidence would you accept that couldn't be dismissed as a God of the gaps? Or spaghetti monster?.......... It seems to me that even if you observe a miracle with your own eyes.... you can dismiss it whith ether god of the gaps or flying spaghetti monster

Evidence cannot by definition be considered "god of the gaps." "God of the gaps" is a form of ARGUMENT. Arguments deal with trying to PROVE things. They have NOTHING to do with evidence.

It shouldn't be this difficult to understand to you.

The burden of proof is on you regarding this btw: If you are asked to present evidence, you can't just wave it away and claim that it wouldn't be considered anyway. I think you're just being dishonest, and are refusing to even try.

 

[leroy]

Planets take their form due to these effects.

How do you know it? Why gravity? Why not fairies or spaghetti monsters?

Or even better...... We simply don't know, ehy invoke a gravity of the gaps?

 

[Darkstorn]

How do you know it? Why gravity? Why not fairies or spaghetti monsters?

Or even better...... We simply don't know, ehy invoke a gravity of the gaps?

Once more: General relativity. And once more: no one claimed that gravity just "exists" to begin with. It was used as an example of cogency of evidence. You failed at reading comprehension.

And yet you try to make fun of "atheist logic." This would be sad if it weren't so funny.

 

[paarsurrey]

The "Atheist method" is an obvious falsehood propagated by a lone theist(Leroy.) I don't understand why you would want to be part of this intentional falsehood with such conviction. It would make you complicit.

Maybe you shouldn't take one biased source's claims at face value. Or you risk being confused as a person who openly propagates falsehoods.

I am not confused, rather it is the confusion of the Atheism people who don't hold any specific Method of their own to know reality. Right, please?
Atheism is neither supported by Science/Scientific Method, nor by Religion/Religious Method, they just play a game of jargons of Philosophy, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

I am not confused, rather it is the confusion of the Atheism people who don't hold any specific Method of their own to know reality. Right, please?

But you ARE confused now: I didn't say you are confused. I say if you propagate lies, other people will confuse you to be a liar.

Atheism is neither supported by Science/Scientific Method, nor by Religion/Religious Method, they just play a game of jargons of Philosophy, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

No. Whereas i do think you're playing some sort of game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ohh that is just a “gravity of the gaps argument”, we don’t understand why things attract to each other “gravity dun it”

Besides, why gravity? Why not fairies? Or the spaghetti monster?

And finally you have to show that gravity exist before claiming “gravity did it”

See? Using your irrational atheist logic one can dismantle any evidence



The answer is “I don’t know” stop shifting the burden proof.

Gravity is an observable and testable concept.

How would you observe God? How would you test his existence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not confused, rather it is the confusion of the Atheism people who don't hold any specific Method of their own to know reality. Right, please?
Atheism is neither supported by Science/Scientific Method, nor by Religion/Religious Method, they just play a game of jargons of Philosophy, I understand. Right, please?

Regards

Atheism is the null hypothesis. You seem to have the incorrect concept that it is a belief when it is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so what evidence would you accept that couldn't be dismissed as a God of the gaps? Or spaghetti monster?.......... It seems to me that even if you observe a miracle with your own eyes.... you can dismiss it whith ether god of the gaps or flying spaghetti monster

This confirms that you don't understand the concept of evidence. No one on the atheist side has dismissed any evidence. You have made poor arguments and those errors have been pointed out to you.

When one uses a God of the Gaps argument pointing out that fact is not dismissing evidence.


If you cannot answer the following question then you have no evidence:

What reasonable test or observation could possibly refute your God claims?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure
Read


Please spot your points of disagreement

For me to disagree, it would have had to be relevant. What do you think that article has to do with your claim?

 

[paarsurrey]

But you ARE confused now: I didn't say you are confused. I say if you propagate lies, other people will confuse you to be a liar.

No. Whereas i do think you're playing some sort of game.

OK forget about it, please.
Just tell me the sources of knowledge or Method the Atheism have to find reality/truth. Right, please?
I will replace what friend @leroy wrote in post #159 with yours one by one, if I find them reasonable, and that will be sort of Atheistic Method. Right, please?
I am an ordinary man in the street, so please keep it simple and avoid terminology jargon as much as possible. Right, please?
It is a friendly discussion, please.

Regards

 

[Darkstorn]

OK forget about it, please.
Just tell me the sources of knowledge or Method the Atheism have to find reality/truth. Right, please?

We have a thing called methodological naturalism. And as extension, the scientific method. Note: These are NOT "Method of Atheism." They are just methods, that both you and i can use.

There is no "method" of Atheism. Atheists simply do not believe in gods. That's all. It's not even meant to be a truth. It's simply non-belief. Everything else you see, is your doing.

I will replace what friend @leroy wrote in post #159 with yours one by one, if I find them reasonable, and that will be sort of Atheistic Method. Right, please?

Atheism isn't a method. There isn't any method. It's a question of belief: Not truth or knowledge. Atheists simply don't believe in gods. Agnostic atheists haven't SEEN a god, but have no evidence to make a positive claim. I am an agnostic atheist.

I do not say "god doesn't exist." I say "i haven't seen anything to suggest that god exists."

And i could still be wrong.

I am an ordinary man in the street, so please keep it simple and avoid terminology jargon as much as possible. Right, please?
It is a friendly discussion, please.

Regards

There isn't going to be any jargon. The only "methods" atheists use have nothing to do with atheism. Instead, every atheist is a different person with different motivations.