Why did you Change your world view?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I would say that there are good positive reasons to reject your “pixies theory” namely we have a better explanation for gravity

We actually barely understand gravity scientifically. It doesn't play nice with quantum physics and we don't know how it fits in with the other 4 forces.

We know a LOT more about evolution then we do about gravity.

Having said all that, having another explanation, is not a positive reason to reject a different explanation.
I only require one reason to not accept something. And that reason is: not having any reasons to accept it.

If we would know NOTHING about gravity whatsoever, not even a working hypothesis, I'ld still not accept the pixies claim.

Would you? I guess you would, since you say you'ld reject it based on having another explanation.
Now pretend we don't have that explanation. What would be your stance on the pixies claim?

Do you have good positive reason to claim that the universe had a natural cause, rather that God did it?

"rather"?
Why is "god" even an option?
See, this is what I mean. You present a false dichotomy. You pretend as if your god is an option on the table by default. But it asbolutely isn't.

I don't know what "caused" the universe. I don't even know if "cause" is a valid term that applies to the origins of the universe (it likely isn't). And it doesn't matter that I don't know either.

Your god claim should be able to stand on its own merrits. But it has no merrits.
You imply that it is a default option on the table, but it isn't.

It's as much an option for the origins of the universe as universe farting pixies are.

Do you have a better explanation for the origin of the universe rather than God?

Again with the false alternative.
God isn't an explanation for the origin of the universe.

I could say that universes are created by interdimensional pixies farting. That space-time bubbles are interdimensional farts. And that claim has the same merrit and the same explanatory power as your god claim. It is just as good. Which is to say: equally bad and devoid of any merrit or explanatory power.

Do you have a better explanation for the FT of the universe?

You keep making the same mistake.
You pretend as if this god claim is a valid option. But it isn't.

It's as good / bad / valid as farting pixies.

Do you have a better explanation for the existence of objective moral values

I don't accept that there is such a thing as "objective moral values".

, free will

brains

, the applicability of math in the universe

We literally invented math to describe the universe. I don't think it's surprising that it does.

the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus?

What resurrection of Jesus?

If yes then please feel free to share that explanation, and explain why that explanation is better than God

You haven't given a "god explanation". Assertions aren't explanations.
I'll just say "i don't know" for the sake of argument.

That doesn't make your god assertion valid in any way or form.
If your claim falls or stands by me being able to offer an alternative, then your claim has nothing of value and is unable to stand on its own merrits.

It's just a species of argument from ignorance.

If you can’t provide such explanations, then there is no justification for putting God in the same category of pixies.

My justification to put god in the category of pixies has everything to do with the god claim itself and its merrits, and nothing at all with "alternative explanations".

 

[leroy]

For me, even if one proves the resurrection actually happened, that does not mean that God exists. For one to conclude that a few conclusions have to be made first:

1. That God exists.
2. That God can resurrect someone.
3. That God is the only being, object or process known to be able to resurrect someone.
4. That God as presented in the bible is the one who resurrected someone.

Sure, but if Jesus rose from the dead or any other miracle is shown to have happened in the past the existence of God would become more probable that without the miracle.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sure, but if Jesus rose from the dead or any other miracle is shown to have happened in the past the existence of God would become more probable that without the miracle.

Not necessarily. Because if it was proven that someone could be resurrected or that any other miracle occurred through non miraculous means then we are back at square one.

Also by miracle do you mean that we dont know how the event occurred?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok spot a specific logical fallacy made in any of those arguments.

I think those have been done to death and you can easily google it, or even look around this forum.
Feel free to create a thread about it to discuss one and I'm sure people, including myself, will be happy to do so.

 

[leroy]

We actually barely understand gravity scientifically. It doesn't play nice with quantum physics and we don't know how it fits in with the other 4 forces.

We know a LOT more about evolution then we do about gravity.

Having said all that, having another explanation, is not a positive reason to reject a different explanation.
I only require one reason to not accept something. And that reason is: not having any reasons to accept it.

If we would know NOTHING about gravity whatsoever, not even a working hypothesis, I'ld still not accept the pixies claim.

Would you? I guess you would, since you say you'ld reject it based on having another explanation.
Now pretend we don't have that explanation. What would be your stance on the pixies claim?



"rather"?
Why is "god" even an option?
See, this is what I mean. You present a false dichotomy. You pretend as if your god is an option on the table by default. But it asbolutely isn't.

I don't know what "caused" the universe. I don't even know if "cause" is a valid term that applies to the origins of the universe (it likely isn't). And it doesn't matter that I don't know either.

Your god claim should be able to stand on its own merrits. But it has no merrits.
You imply that it is a default option on the table, but it isn't.

It's as much an option for the origins of the universe as universe farting pixies are.




Again with the false alternative.
God isn't an explanation for the origin of the universe.

I could say that universes are created by interdimensional pixies farting. That space-time bubbles are interdimensional farts. And that claim has the same merrit and the same explanatory power as your god claim. It is just as good. Which is to say: equally bad and devoid of any merrit or explanatory power.




You keep making the same mistake.
You pretend as if this god claim is a valid option. But it isn't.

It's as good / bad / valid as farting pixies.




I don't accept that there is such a thing as "objective moral values".




brains



We literally invented math to describe the universe. I don't think it's surprising that it does.



What resurrection of Jesus?



You haven't given a "god explanation". Assertions aren't explanations.
I'll just say "i don't know" for the sake of argument.

That doesn't make your god assertion valid in any way or form.
If your claim falls or stands by me being able to offer an alternative, then your claim has nothing of value and is unable to stand on its own merrits.

It's just a species of argument from ignorance.



My justification to put god in the category of pixies has everything to do with the god claim itself and its merrits, and nothing at all with "alternative explanations".

Again, we have good positive reasons to reject Pixies as an explanation for gravity, unless you provide good positive to reject God as an explanation for things like the FT of the universe, you have no justification to put God and pixies in the same category.

The fact that we have a better explanation for gravity (even if not perfect) is a good reason to reject Pixies, other good reason would be the fact that you just invented your pixies theory to make a point + the fact that pixies is adhoc, and unparsimonious these are all good resosn to reject pixies, if you don’t provide equivalent reasons to reject God, you have no justification in putting God and Pixies in the same category.

If we would know NOTHING about gravity whatsoever, not even a working hypothesis, I'ld still not accept the pixies claim.

Sure, because there would be many good reasons to reject the pixies claim

Why is "god" even an option?

If you are not even willing to consider God an option, then you have to provide a justification, why shouldn’t we consider God an option? Do you have strong evidence against the existence of God, such that God wouldn’t be an option? If not, then what justification can you provide for rejectin a prior God as an option?

Having said all that, having another explanation, is not a positive reason to reject a different explanation.
I only require one reason to not accept something. And that reason is: not having any reasons to accept it.

Sure but if someone presents you an argument, you have to provide a good reason to reject such argument,

For example is there any good reason to reject the KCA?

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
Ok spot a specific logical fallacy made in any of those arguments.

I think those have been done to death and you can easily google it, or even look around this forum.
Feel free to create a thread about it to discuss one and I'm sure people, including myself, will be happy to do so.

I think those have been done to death and you can easily google it, or even look around this forum.
Feel free to create a thread about it to discuss one and I'm sure people, including myself, will be happy to do so.

ok feel free to respond in this thread
"IF The Big Bang Is True Then How.....?"

 

[leroy]

Not necessarily. Because if it was proven that someone could be resurrected or that any other miracle occurred through non miraculous means then we are back at square one.

Also by miracle do you mean that we dont know how the event occurred?

A miracle would be an event that could have not occurred given the natural laws that we have

Any event like that would make the existence of God more probable that without such event.

For example assuming that you are an agnostic, who claims that the evidence for and against the existence of God is 50% / 50% . the observation of something that looks pretty much like a miracle should move the balance in favor of the God exists scenario. Agree?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would only be true if you show that the bible is wrong in the specific verses where God is depicted.

The god that literally flooded the world with whole noah's ark thing, does not exist.
The god that literally talked to moses and order him to literally lead his people out into the desert after sending 7 literal plagues and literally open up the sea, does not exist.
The god that literally created a man from dirt and the woman from the guy's rib, does not exist.

But sure that would show that a specific interpretation/description of God is wrong.

Did someone ever claim anything else?
Can you point me to a person that said "the bible is wrong therefor allah and thor aren't real?"

It kind of seems like a given to me that whenever a specific religion is being discussed and declared incorrect (I'll even leave it in the middle if its more then just a declaration or not) followed by "therefor no god", that it is referring to the specific god being claimed in the specific religion.

After all, when having such a discussion with an individual, one is referring to a specific god when using the word "god", right? I don't think that when a christian and an atheist discuss "god", that the christian (or the atheist) is talking about allah or visjnoe.

That like saying Galileo was wrong in some parts of his book, therefore the geocentric model is true , obviously it doesn’t follow

I don't think anyone said anything like that either.

, in the same way showing that a specific verse in the bible is wrong, would not show that atheism is true.

I already corrected you on this one. Either you didn't read it or you ignored it. Atheism is not a thing that can be "true". Or "false", for that matter.

Atheism isn't a claim or assertion.
It's just the position of disbelief / non-acceptance of theistic claims.

Theism is the claim.
Atheism is when you don't accept said claim. Atheism isn't a claim on its own.

THEISM is the thing that can be true or false.

An atheist is simply someone that isn't buying what theists are trying to sell.
An atheist is not trying to sell something else instead.

Having said that, obviously every claim falls and stands on its own merrits.
The bible, is a collection of many many many claims.
Indeed, showing some claims wrong doesn't tell you if the others are wrong.
Just like showing some claims correct doesn't tell you if the others are correct.

Some theists though, muslims especially and fundamentalists in general, have the view that the scripture not only IS 100% correct, but has to be. To the point that if it isn't, it can't be the inerrant word of god.
In those cases, showing ONE thing to be wrong, would disprove that version of theism.

Obviously there are many many versions of theism.
Christianity alone as 10s of thousands.

The point being that finding mistakes in the bible does not justify atheism (do you agree with this point, yes or no)

I agree, but probably for different reasons then you are thinking (or hoping).

I do NOT justify my atheism by finding errors in religions.
I justify my atheism purely on the merrit of the claims of theism.

This goes back to the previous post, where you seem to keep insisting that "god" is some default option always on the table, wich somehow gains credibility if "no alternative explanations" exist.

It just doesn't work that way. The god claim itself, has a burden of proof. It falls and stands on its own merrits.

Suppose you can't find a single error in Star Wars. Does that mean Luke Skywalker exists?
Off course not.

Again: claims fall and stand on their own merrit.

I justify my atheism by the fact that theistic claims CAN NOT stand on their own merrit.

That you can point out errors in certain scriptures or beliefs, to me is just icing on the cake, but not at all required.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence for the resurrection that theist usually provide

1 Jesus Died on the Cross

2 Jesus was buried

3 the tomb was found empty

4 The disciples and many others had experiences that they interpreted as having seen iand interacting with the risen Jesus

5 They were willing to fight and die for the believe in the resurrection

Those are claims.

So what’s wrong with this?

What's wrong with it, is that those are claims that are in need of evidence.
The claims aren't evidence of themselves.

Even if I would grant you all 5, all you'ld have evidence of, is that there were people that really really believed it. Not that it actually occured.

And we already know there are and were people that believed it, because christianity is a thing....

Would you say that these are not historical facts that probably happened, or would you say that there is a better explanation than the resurrection for these facts? (are to provide such explanation and explain why is it a better explanation?)

All it is evidence of, is that people believed.

Sure, the universe is chaotic, how does that invalidates the FT argument?

The FT argument is an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

"I don't understand why these values and not others, therefor god"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A miracle would be an event that could have not occurred given the natural laws that we have

So in other words, a "miracle" is something that is impossible.
That's what "impossible" means: that which can not happen according to the laws of nature.

So an event that ignores / suspends / violates natural law.
There's another word for that as well. It's called "magic".

Any event like that would make the existence of God more probable that without such event.

Or interdimensional magic pixies.
Those would become more probable too.
Harry Potter as well. And Merlin. And every other wizard or magical being.

For example assuming that you are an agnostic, who claims that the evidence for and against the existence of God is 50% / 50%

That's not agnosticism.
Agnosticism means that no evidence can exist pro OR con. There's no 50/50. There's rather 0/0

. the observation of something that looks pretty much like a miracle should move the balance in favor of the God exists scenario. Agree?

"looks like"?

You mean like showing a smartphone or hololens to a medieval person?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, we have good positive reasons to reject Pixies as an explanation for gravity, unless you provide good positive to reject God as an explanation for things like the FT of the universe, you have no justification to put God and pixies in the same category.

I see you are still on that fallacy.
Let's move it around then.

Let's take the origins of the universe.
It's the result of extra-dimensional pixies farting. A space-time bubble is thus an inter-dimensional pixie fart.

So, what "positive reason" do you have to reject that one?

The fact that we have a better explanation for gravity (even if not perfect) is a good reason to reject Pixies, other good reason would be the fact that you just invented your pixies theory to make a point + the fact that pixies is adhoc, and unparsimonious these are all good resosn to reject pixies, if you don’t provide equivalent reasons to reject God, you have no justification in putting God and Pixies in the same category.

I already explained to you that my point isn't concerned with potential alternative explanations and only concerned with the actual merrits of the claims itself.

If you are saying that claim X falls and stands by if there are alternative explanations, then X is claimed through an argument from ignorance.

Sure, because there would be many good reasons to reject the pixies claim

Such as?

If you are not even willing to consider God an option, then you have to provide a justification, why shouldn’t we consider God an option?

Blatant shift of the burden of proof.
You need reasons / justification to suggest something as an option first.

The question is not why something shouldn't be considered as an option, but rather why it SHOULD be.
And THAT reason / justification will then form the basis for exploring the option.

If that reason / justification isn't there, or isn't given, then there is nothing there to explore or consider.

And FYI: THAT is the reason why you would reject universe farting pixies. Because there is no reason to consider them in the first place!

Do you have strong evidence against the existence of God, such that God wouldn’t be an option?

Do you have strong evidence against the existance of extra-dimensional universe farting pixies?
See? Again with the shifting of the burden of proof.

Also, it's kind of hard to have evidence against an unfalsifiable claim. It's also kind of hard to have evidence FOR an unfalsifiable claim.

And finally we arrive at why god and pixies are in the same category: they are both unfalsifiable. And thus by extension unverifiable, untestable and without ANY merrit whatsoever.

They address and explain exactly nothing. They are indistinguishable from imagination.
Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number, only limited by your own imagination.

If not, then what justification can you provide for rejectin a prior God as an option?

Because there's no valid reason to accept it as an option.
That's it.

Sure but if someone presents you an argument, you have to provide a good reason to reject such argument,
For example is there any good reason to reject the KCA?

Yes.

It uses unsupported premises.
It has loads of problems actually, depending on how you word it.

But the unsupported premise thingy is present in all of them.

 

[Samael_Khan]

A miracle would be an event that could have not occurred given the natural laws that we have

Any event like that would make the existence of God more probable that without such event.

For example assuming that you are an agnostic, who claims that the evidence for and against the existence of God is 50% / 50% . the observation of something that looks pretty much like a miracle should move the balance in favor of the God exists scenario. Agree?

I would place it in the "i dont know" category by themselves.

I would say then that miracles would prove the validity of the bibles claims that certain events happened but it wouldnt confirm what the Bible says are their origins.

It would raise the probability of not just God being a possibility but a host of other beings and events and practices being possible. The most they would show us is that certain events occur unnaturally and defy what we know about the world and it would mean that there are certain things that we cannot explain.

 

[leroy]

Did someone ever claim anything else?
Can you point me to a person that said "the bible is wrong therefor allah and thor aren't real?"
.

The original question was “why did you changed your view” and someone (ChristineM) answered, I was a Christian but then I read the bible and noticed that is fool mistakes, contradicts, **** etc. and I became an atheist

I simply pointed that it is fallacious to become an atheist for that reason, because from the fact that the bible is wrong, it doesn’t follow that atheism is true

 

[ChristineM]

Ok so what unjustified supposition does the KCA makes?

The evidence for the resurrection that theist usually provide

1 Jesus Died on the Cross

2 Jesus was buried

3 the tomb was found empty

4 The disciples and many others had experiences that they interpreted as having seen iand interacting with the risen Jesus

5 They were willing to fight and die for the believe in the resurrection

So what’s wrong with this? Would you say that these are not historical facts that probably happened, or would you say that there is a better explanation than the resurrection for these facts? (are to provide such explanation and explain why is it a better explanation?)


Sure, the universe is chaotic, how does that invalidates the FT argument?

It makes assumption that cause precedes effect. There are three arguments against this, first it is unknown if time existed, without time caus and effect are meaningless. Second when this universe formed the laws that govern this universe did not exist so it is unknown if a cause was required. Third QM does not require that cause and effect be in order. So its first premise is made on guesswork.

Second premise, it is unknown if our began to exist or if it has always existed. Another guess

Third premise is invalid because the previous 2 premises are invalid

Fourth premise is a leap of faith based on ignorance, not predefined but used as the argument.

As for your resurrection ideas. I thought we were talking of evidence. Not what it says in the bible because it says so in the bible. I know of one proposed explanation that is accepted by some scholars and does not involve magic

 

[ChristineM]

The original question was “why did you changed your view” and someone (ChristineM) answered, I was a Christian but then I read the bible and noticed that is fool mistakes, contradicts, **** etc. and I became an atheist

I simply pointed that it is fallacious to become an atheist for that reason, because from the fact that the bible is wrong, it doesn’t follow that atheism is true

Sorry if it upsets you that not all people are of your mindset and to not need your agreement to actually think

 

[leroy]

Those are claims.



What's wrong with it, is that those are claims that are in need of evidence.
The claims aren't evidence of themselves.

Of course these are “just claims” this is a forum, I am simply making a summary of the arguments, these claims have been revised and analyzed multiple times by multiple scholars.

I am assuming that you are familiar with the literature and that you have a view on this claims, so do you accept these claims as factual (answer yes or no)

Even if I would grant you all 5, all you'ld have evidence of, is that there were people that really really believed it. Not that it actually occured.

Ok, so do you have a better naturalistic explanation for those 5 facts ?

 

[leroy]

The FT argument is an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

"I don't understand why these values and not others, therefor god"

Originally you said that the FT argument is wrong, because the universe is chaotic, are you going to support that assertion??

 

[ChristineM]

Originally you said that the FT argument is wrong, because the universe is chaotic, are you going to support that assertion??

I will
An Unpredictable Universe: A Deep Dive Into Chaos Theory | Space

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would place it in the "i dont know" category by themselves.

I would say then that miracles would prove the validity of the bibles claims that certain events happened but it wouldnt confirm what the Bible says are their origins.

It would raise the probability of not just God being a possibility but a host of other beings and events and practices being possible. The most they would show us is that certain events occur unnaturally and defy what we know about the world and it would mean that there are certain things that we cannot explain.

And let's be honest.... the more likely explanation for such an event would simply be a natural phenomenon or technology that we simply have yet to learn about. Or the observation itself was wrong.


For example (I hope I remember it correctly....):
A few years ago, there was some turmoil in physics circles. A physcist team shot a beam of neutrino's from switzerland to a detector in italy. The resulting data upon detecting their arrival in itally, showed that the neutrino's traveled faster then the speed of light. A violation of everything we know about physics. Impossible to occur according to Einstein's relativity.

So, was it a "miracle"?

Nope. The observation was wrong. The calculation, ironically, didn't take relativity into account, haha.

Nobody ever considered that physics was wrong. Let alone considered that a "miracle" had just occured (since this observation would have been a violation of natural law as we understand it).


How can you even demonstrate that a miracle occured?
It necessarily is done on faith alone.

And if the excuse given is "we have no other explanation", then it's just an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Originally you said that the FT argument is wrong, because the universe is chaotic, are you going to support that assertion??

You are confusing me with someone else. I didn't say that.

I said what you quoted: it's an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

"I don't understand why the values are what they are, therefor god".

That's the crux of the FT "argument".