That is really the only purpose these sites serve, giving the crazies enough encouragement to embarrass themselves
I find value here practicing writing and vocabulary skills, refining my arguments, and practicing naming and identifying logical fallacies.
Also of great value is examining the spectrum of believers, which gives me a sense of what religion is doing in, and in most cases, to their lives - a topic I brush on below when I describe Christians like
@Dan From Smithville , and compare them (in my mind rather than in writing) to those who have been harmed by their beliefs such that their thinking is ineffective.
I think most of us do not believe in the false AGW alarm and fear-mongering anymore.
You will if you live for more than a few years. When things reach a certain stage, people will be forced to take the science seriously or just perish.
I guess record temperatures, sea levels rising, the world being on fire, and there being a need for new categories of tornadoes and hurricanes doesn't tell you much. It would if you were an evidence-based thinker rather than a faith-based thinker. It's evidence that the scientists are correct.
Try the evidence-based approach. Ask yourself what one should expect to see if the scientists are correct, and what one would see if they are not, and compare that with what is actually being seen. It's a much more effective way of deciding what is true about the world.
The argument is Kalam Cosmological Argument which is quite powerful.
I consider it one of the worst arguments I have ever seen, making an enormous leap of faith with a non sequitur. Here's the argument as William Lane Craig presents it:
1. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.”
2. “The universe began to exist.”
3. “Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.”
4. “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
5. “Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.”
Think of this as two connected syllogisms, with the conclusion of the first being a premise of the second.
We can ignore the problem with the first conclusion, line 3, which assumes that what is true within the universe is true about the universe itself, as well as the matter of quantum physics saying that subatomic particles do come into existence uncaused, and atomic nuclei decay without a cause.
Look at line 4. Craig has made a huge error in logic here. How did he rule out the multiverse being that cause? Why wouldn't changing line 4 to “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, unconscious multiverse must exist” not be just as (in)valid?
If you reject that conclusion, and you should, because Craig's sentient god possibility cannot be ruled out either, then you know why Craig's conclusion is fallacious, a non sequitur.
Here’s a worse argument - the ontological argument for God :
"
Anselm began with the concept of God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived. To think of such a being as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction, since a being that lacks real existence is not a being than which none greater can be conceived."
If you can conceive it, it must exist. Really? Why is that even a thing? How did that argument gain traction?
Here's another example of tortured reasoning from Craig:
"The explanation of God's existence must be that he exists simply by a necessity of his own nature." - Wm Lane Craig (podcast)
This is the kind of thing we expect from Christian apologists and philosophasters
Finally, here's a quote I find quite apt:
"When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense." - Edward Abbey
If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.
Like I said in an earlier post, every now and again you seem to hint at being able to understand what unbelief is, but then you relapse into calling all atheists disbelievers as if none can be unbelievers without active disbelief.
You failed to address my comment that it is possible to think without any faith-based beliefs at all. People that have learned to do that do not believe that gods do not exist. They merely say that they do not believe in any gods, and are content with that, since it is the limit of evidence-based knowledge - a distinction that eludes you. We can neither rule gods in nor out. There is zero faith involved in making that statement.
what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
What proof is needed to be an atheist? Or an aleprechaunist? Or an avampirist? We don't need proof to say that we don't believe what others believe without sufficient supporting evidence.
Why do you think we do? How many beliefs do you reject without proofs that they are wrong? Probably most of your nonbeliefs.
(continued)
. Otherwise, we would've had it in this thread by now. Moreover, creationists have ontology.
