Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[prometheus11]

What relevance does this have to explaining the mystery of existence? Answer: None.

Who needs an answer to that mystery? Not rational people.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No sense debating my obviously correct claims, then. Run along, son, run along.

Such arrogance and condescension at that. Truly a FIGJAM poster. I'll post where I please. I certainly don't need Rush here telling me how to think. It's not cute or funny. It's just rude and contemptible.

 

[prometheus11]

Such arrogance and condescension at that. Truly a FIGJAM poster. I'll post where I please. I certainly don't need Rush here telling me how to think. It's not cute or funny. It's just rude and contemptible.

Again, if you can, show my posts wrong.

I can show yours wrong all day long. Let's go.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Both belief and disbelief require faith.

I like your point but atheist do not need to have belief. One thing is clear, God does not exists. We have found no reason and no effect of this imaginary entity. As for the material world, we know a few things and we do not know a few things. We are trying to know more about things that we do not know. So where is the question of atheists having a belief? Why should we presume something more than what we know?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I can show yours wrong all day long. Let's go.

Yet, you haven't come close. Merely a legend in your own mind. Good luck with the therapy. From this point I will refuse to feed the troll. Good day.

I like your point but atheist do not need to have belief.

No, they have disbelief. Only the agnostic may claim no need for faith.

One thing is clear, God does not exists.

Said the blind man to his deaf son as they watched the roaring river in silence. Such great faith I have not seen in all of Israel. Once you cross from not knowing to the affirmative you have to actually produce evidence to support your contention. Proving a null is a fool's journey for the most part. It's not like you can look into a drawer and count how many Gods lie within. You accept there is no God on nothing more than faith.

 

[Shad]

You want the luxury of always playing offense without ever having to play defense. I'm not participating in that kind game.

No considering the OP of this post is playing offense thann I am playing defense. You attacked atheism, I am responding to this attack. You seem to not understand the words you are using here.

 

[Shad]

you do not comprehend logic

Actually I understand it perfectly. Perhaps enroll in a logic and philosophy course in order to learn that empty statements do not make arguments. This is the first lesson

http://virtualschool.edu/mon/SocialConstruction/Logic.html

Then why are you talking about it?

I am pointing out the theist is demanding a middle ground that favours them and their presuppositions without cause. They have yet to establish anything they claim is sound yet demand I accept unsound position they hold

Once more you are being obstinately illogical.

Nope, try to make an argument rather than make empty statements.

You completely contradict your own claim by actually talking about it?

Nope since I am stating the theist's demands are unwarranted.

Now! Do you have anything more to say?
No? Yes?

If someone has anything worth considering, if more horrible argument are put forward or people make empty statements backed up nothing as you have done.

 

[Shad]

Theist's are usually pretty honest about their reliance on faith, while atheists are far less so.

Only those that would be gnostic. I am not one of them.

Both belief and disbelief require faith.

Nope as belief can be justified by evidence with faith can not.

Only true agnostics can ascribe to not needing any faith. I have yet to meet a true agnostic, which makes reliance on faith fairly universal, at least in practice.

Not at all as I require no faith to hold any of my positions.

 

[Shad]

In epistemology, knowledge has traditionally been defined as justified belief. So, all forms of knowledge are actually beliefs, with the possible exception of our first-person perspective of our own subjectivity. That being said, metaphysical naturalism cannot be validated (not even in theory) by methodological naturalism (a.k.a. science). All metaphysical positions must be rationally justified. This is the methodology of philosophy.

Agreed hence why no metaphysical position is rationally justified. It is speculation only. Keep in mind the requirements in philosophy for a position to be justified. Now put that into practice.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Only those that would be gnostic. I am not one of them.

I don't buy your special pleading here. It's tiresome.

Nope as belief can be justified by evidence with faith can not.

You even have your personal definition here. Why limit faith?

Not at all as I require no faith to hold any of my positions.

Again, the dishonesty. You don't admit the faith, but it's there. It has to be. You may not even understand the faith you use, but it's there. You might even be right... but it still requires faith to support any belief about God. Faith is not a four letter word. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to distance themselves from it utter than some delusion.

 

[prometheus11]

Yet, you haven't come close. Merely a legend in your own mind. Good luck with the therapy. From this point I will refuse to feed the troll. .

Nice try. I've posted reasons why you're wrong and you were silent (except for silly accusations).

Keep posting. I'll keep refuting. Perfectly. With correct reason. Try me out. You'll see.

 

[Shad]

I don't buy your special pleading here. It's tiresome.

No special pleading as I am not making an exception. I am not a gnostic atheist thus no special pleading. Look up the fallacy before you use it.

You even have your personal definition here. Why limit faith?

It is not a personal definition, it a definition that existed fore centuries before I was born.

Again, the dishonesty. You don't admit the faith, but it's there. It has to be. You may not even understand the faith you use, but it's there. You might even be right... but it still requires faith to support any belief about God. Faith is not a four letter word. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to distance themselves from it utter than some delusion.

Look up the words you are using. Your argument is based on your inability to understand the terms you use.

You do not understand since you do not comprehend the words you are using. This causes you to make errors and incorrect conclusions. The only delusion is that you think you know what faith and belief mean. You don't.

 

[prometheus11]

FYI. He's using the definition of "faith" that means simple belief. He's ignoring the second half because it doesn't allow him to pretend that belief and faith are the same thing.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No special pleading as I am not making an exception. I am not a gnostic atheist thus no special pleading. Look up the fallacy before you use it.

Mild insults don't influence me at all. You claim to know the unknowable which means you must use faith to maintain your position. You can disagree with me, but that doesn't change the logic of it all.

It is not a personal definition, it a definition that existed fore centuries before I was born.

Please cite this centuries old definition. Websters seems to think you're wrong.

Look up the words you are using. Your argument is based on your inability to understand the terms you use.

You're the one with the comprehension issue. Perhaps English is not your primary language. Is there one you're more comfortable with?

You do not understand since you do not comprehend the words you are using. This causes you to make errors and incorrect conclusions. The only delusion is that you think you know what faith and belief mean. You don't.

This is called projection. You fail to comprehend so you claim that I don't. Faith and belief can be looked up in any online dictionary. When you twist definitions to only include your narrow perception of what either mean, it's a special pleading. You want us to suspend reality so that you can be right. I'm not willing to do that for you or anyone else.

 

[Shad]

Mild insults don't influence me at all.

You only took it as an insult as I pointed out your mistake

You claim to know the unknowable which means you must use faith to maintain your position.

I did no such thing.

You can disagree with me, but that doesn't change the logic of it all.

You miss use of a fallacy does not make your argument logical. Look up the fallacy before using it.

Please cite this centuries old definition. Websters seems to think you're wrong.

Are you incapable of using a dictionary?

You're the one with the comprehension issue. Perhaps English is not your primary language. Is there one you're more comfortable with?

Try using a dictionary

This is called projection. You fail to comprehend so you claim that I don't. Faith and belief can be looked up in any online dictionary. When you twist definitions to only include your narrow perception of what either mean, it's a special pleading. You want us to suspend reality so that you can be right. I'm not willing to do that for you or anyone else.

Nope, again use a dictionary

 

[Shad]

FYI. He's using the definition of "faith" that means simple belief. He's ignoring the second half because it doesn't allow him to pretend that belief and faith are the same thing.

He is ignoring the parameters of "without evidence/proof" clearly stated in the definition of faith. He is also ignore how faith also includes religious beliefs as a secondary parameter.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I did no such thing.

What do you think 'gnostic' means?

Blah, blah, blah de blah...

this reminds me of a bad replay of Monty Python. Only they showed creativity in portraying this kind of puerile back and forth.

 

[Shad]

What do you think 'gnostic' means?

Consider I am not a gnostic you point is irrelevent. Continue to ignore my previous posts.

this reminds me of a bad replay of Monty Python. Only they showed creativity in portraying this kind of puerile back and forth.

Exactly. Maybe you actually read what I post.

Only those that would be gnostic. I am not one of them.

What do you think this means?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, they have disbelief.

Nice. No, it is not disbelief. It is a definite denial based on evidence or non-availability of it. Saying that a kettle revolves around the earth and I have not been there to search all around is a false argument. Who created and placed the kettle there - God?

 

[prometheus11]

Nice. No, it is not disbelief. It is a definite denial based on evidence or non-availability of it. Saying that a kettle revolves around the earth and I have not been there to search all around is a false argument. Who created and placed the kettle there - God?

Blasphemer. You shall have lukewarm, muddy tea with soggy biscuits for all eternity. (Ok, the tea is really just a little earthy tasting..it's not really mud...but sometimes the biscuits are stale instead of soggy and then you'll be sorry!!)

Akettlists!