There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[ppp]

I can see that you use a phrase like "argument from ignorance" with "false authority fallacy" thrown in, and you think that you have posted something rational and knowledgeable.
It sounds like an irrational logical fallacy post to me.

Do you know what those phrases mean? Do you understand what parts of your post he is referring to? That is what you should be responding to. Instead you are just grumbling epithets.

An argument from ignorance fallacy is when one claims that the lack of knowledge to the contrary support your position.
There are two types of false authority fallacy - I suspect that this one is the fallacy of insufficient authority, where you are citing a philosopher's opinion on biology.

 

[ppp]

It is skeptics and atheists who have said that most of those things have a bearing on the existance or non-existence of pixies or gods.

You made that up.

So I reply to that and now it seems those things have no bearing on the existence of pixies or gods.

No, you reply to what it means to you in your head. You think that if someone holds a position that contradicts your religious beliefs that their position is about your religious beliefs. When, in reality, your religious beliefs are not even being considered in that context.

Do you have any idea to demonstrate that something is designed?

 

[Ostronomos]

Complexity has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Chemistry has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Biology has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Physics has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Name dropping has no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.
Feelings have no bearing on the existence or non-existence of a pixie or a god.

Yet you keep trying to wangle, inveigle and finagle those things into support of your belief in the existence of your particular pixie or god. That is "how [you] have done that."

God is reality. Pixies can also be a form of reality if and only if mind affects reality in the higher dimensional realm. Which is demonstrated by string theory.

Recall that the higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

So if you imagine an entity such as a pixie, which doesn't normally exist, something would manifest as a "pixie" to some degree in the higher dimensional reality of God.

 

[ppp]

God is reality. Pixies can also be a reality if and only if mind affects reality in the higher dimensional realm. Which is demonstrated by string theory.

Recall that the higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

So if you imagine an entity such as a pixie, which doesn't normally exist, something would manifest as a "pixie" to some degree in the higher dimensional reality of God.

No.

 

[Ostronomos]

You made that up.

No, you reply to what it means to you in your head. You think that if someone holds a position that contradicts your religious beliefs that their position is about your religious beliefs. When, in reality, your religious beliefs are not even being considered in that context.

Do you have any idea to demonstrate that something is designed?

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge that God is not real (a lie) is a deceiver. This is because I am one of the few authorities who claim absolute knowledge that a God exists.

Is your name Richard Parker?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see that you use a phrase like "argument from ignorance" with "false authority fallacy" thrown in, and you think that you have posted something rational and knowledgeable.
It sounds like an irrational logical fallacy post to me.

That is because you do not understand logic. Or rational reasoning. If you do not understand what your errors were you should have asked questions.

Do you want to go over your errors?

 

[ppp]

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge that God is not real (a lie) is a deceiver. This is because I am one of the few authorities who claim absolute knowledge that a God exists.

Is your name Richard Parker?

Am I supposed to be taking this sideshow seriously?

 

[McBell]

Anyone who claims absolute knowledge that God is not real (a lie) is a deceiver. This is because I am one of the few authorities who claim absolute knowledge that a God exists.

Is your name Richard Parker?

so, by your own words, you are liar, right?

 

[Brian2]

You made that up.

You can believe that if you want to.

No, you reply to what it means to you in your head. You think that if someone holds a position that contradicts your religious beliefs that their position is about your religious beliefs. When, in reality, your religious beliefs are not even being considered in that context.

It is true that science does not consider my religious beliefs in it's work, presumably.
Skeptics and Atheists do however use science to try to show that my beliefs are not true.
Haven't you ever noticed that?

Do you have any idea to demonstrate that something is designed?

I think what I have been saying about Genetic code is along those lines, but is not and is not meant to be a science hypothesis.

 

[Brian2]

That is because you do not understand logic. Or rational reasoning. If you do not understand what your errors were you should have asked questions.

Do you want to go over your errors?

You can explain them to me if you wish.
@ppp tried but he/she was only guessing what you may have meant.

 

[Audie]

What a display of creationists just saying things,
making up whatever suits them, with no trace
of conscience, qualms about " false witness",
no integrity.
And zero capacity to ever ever admitvthe tiniest error or
untruth.

Why does that faith ("faith") attract such people?

 

[ppp]

You can believe that if you want to.

I neither want to, nor don't want to. Its irrelevant. If the world were full of atheists who believed that such things were evidence against pixies and gods, I would oppose their claims as well. But the fact of the matter is that even if the world were full of atheist who believe such thing, you @Brian2 have not produced any evidence that you know it, nor, based on past behavior, will you ever do so.

It is true that science does not consider my religious beliefs in it's work, presumably.
Skeptics and Atheists do however use science to try to show that my beliefs are not true.
Haven't you ever noticed that?

Your beliefs are "not true" based on the fact that you have yet to demonstrate that you know or are capable of knowing what you claim. This is irrespective of science. Even if there is a god, your beliefs are "not true".

BTW, you know that "not true" and "false" are not the same thing?

I think what I have been saying about Genetic code is along those lines, but is not and is not meant to be a science hypothesis.

You have not said anything about the genetic code. You have only said that some philosopher had an opinion about things he thought about the genetic code. That is the sum total of your position.

 

[Ebionite]

I guess that's my point about being so easily taken in.
Broken b.s. detector.
Cant even see it when told about it.

How would you distinguish not seeing something that exists from not seeing something that doesn't exist?

And it fits in nicely with the human reluctance to ever
admit to being gulled. ( defrauded, hoodwinked, misled,
tricked, snooker etc )

The key issue is human pride, which is more likely to be a trait of those who hold to a secular worldview. The language of humanism originated with the hubris of Cicero, who regarded those outside of the Rome (non citizens) as subhuman.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can believe that if you want to.



It is true that science does not consider my religious beliefs in it's work, presumably.
Skeptics and Atheists do however use science to try to show that my beliefs are not true.
Haven't you ever noticed that?



I think what I have been saying about Genetic code is along those lines, but is not and is not meant to be a science hypothesis.

Calling it a code is a metaphor to aid in understanding it. It isn't claiming that it is an actual code like humans create use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What a display of creationists just saying things,
making up whatever suits them, with no trace
of conscience, qualms about " false witness",
no integrity.
And zero capacity to ever ever admitvthe tiniest error or
untruth.

Why does that faith ("faith") attract such people?

I can't answer that question. It puzzles me too.

 

[Brian2]

Calling it a code is a metaphor to aid in understanding it. It isn't claiming that it is an actual code like humans create use.

It does not really matter about the definition of "code". It is that the DNA is a storer of biological information and a user of that information. To me that shows a designer behind it, to put it in the role and enable it to fulfil the role that it fulfills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does not really matter about the definition of "code". It is that the DNA is a storer of biological information and a user of that information. To me that shows a designer behind it, so put it in the role and enable it to fulfil the role that it fulfills.

That is just an assumption. There does not appear to be a God involved in DNA acquiring new information. The theory of evolution explains it just fine without a God being involved. That does not refute a God, but it clearly is not evidence for God.

And if you want to claim that it had to have come from a God you take on a burden of proof.


Your argument is essentially an argument from ignorance, as logical fallacy: "I do not understand how this could arise naturally, therefore God".

 

[Brian2]

That is just an assumption.

No it is reasoning and with the possibility of a God still there as a possible answer.

There does not appear to be a God involved in DNA acquiring new information. The theory of evolution explains it just fine without a God being involved. That does not refute a God, but it clearly is not evidence for God.

Of course it works chemically. It was designed to work in a certain way and it does.
Otherwise it is one chance after another, after another, after another etc etc starting with the accidental availability of chemicals.

And if you want to claim that it had to have come from a God you take on a burden of proof.

You mean like you take on the burden of proof that everything happened by chance?

Your argument is essentially an argument from ignorance, as logical fallacy: "I do not understand how this could arise naturally, therefore God".

I thought that was the logical fallacy of incredulity.
It is not an argument from ignorance because I don't say that science has not found an answer to how it might have come about, so it must be God.
BUT considering the problem and realising that the answers are either chance or God, I reasoned that God is the better alternative.
Do you reason that chance is the better alternative or do you just say "I don't know, it could be God or it could be chance."
No I guess you don't say that because you have thrown out God as a possible answer, so you must say chance.
If you claim chance then the burden of proof is on you.
But you won't shoulder that burden and neither do I. Either you can see the obvious or not.

 

[Audie]

How would you distinguish not seeing something that exists from not seeing something that doesn't exist?

The key issue is human pride, which is more likely to be a trait of those who hold to a secular worldview. The language of humanism originated with the hubris of Cicero, who regarded those outside of the Rome (non citizens) as subhuman.

That first could use some discussion
and a rephrase away from double negatives.

In general, though, I'd say there's a considerable
difference between things that do exist, and things
that don't. And the difference is wholly independent
of an individual's capacity to detect somethings existence.

A robust bs detector is among the characteristi s of those
not easily fooled by claims based bd evidence.

Your statement about pride is,
interestingly, just your opinion with
no evident basis, which you state as a fact.

Interesting in that it reflects ts exactly the Christian
vanity that I was referring to.

Regarding "secular" you may have some eccentric
meaning in mind, and if so you'd do well to say so.

By normal / dictionary use though-

You are claiming as fact that those ( Christians
included ) who favour separation of church and state,
or otherwise not making churchy stuff integral
to all aspects of life are, in some weird cause and effect
way more prideful than chridtian fundamentalists.

And by extension, stubborn, uneducateable, impervious to
facts, and delusional in holding that they know better and
know more than any researcher on earth.

Some of the very characteristics of the Christian fundys i was referring to.

And, you displayed more than one fundy characteristic
yourself, notably stating baseless opinion as fact.

 

[Audie]

That is just an assumption. There does not appear to be a God involved in DNA acquiring new information. The theory of evolution explains it just fine without a God being involved. That does not refute a God, but it clearly is not evidence for God.

And if you want to claim that it had to have come from a God you take on a burden of proof.


Your argument is essentially an argument from ignorance, as logical fallacy: "I do not understand how this could arise naturally, therefore God".

Or "Opinion equals fact ifn it's MY opinion".