OK. Here's thepost:
Is YEC a Christian denomination, please?
No. YEC stand for young earth (Christian) creationist. These are people who beliieve that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The reject the science that contradicts that (Big Bang, plate tectonics, biological evolution), all of which points to ages for the solar system and the universe in the billions of years.
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 already gave you a rebuttal. You ignored it and the rest of the post as well.
Why did you Change your world view?
"
If God was forced to build a universe withing narrow limits in its physical parameters, how can we say that He was all-powerful or the author of those requirements rather than that they were something imposed on Him by a higher, prior order. How could this god be called omnipotent if it could only form the universe one way? If that's the case, this god didn't actually design anything. It followed a set of instructions that restricted it. The fine tuning argument is addressed by the multiverse hypothesis, in which uncounted editions of every possible unverse are spawned from a single, eternal, unconscious source."
The answer is unchanged, of course, which is what you would expect if you didn't successfully rebut it.
the cause of the universe, by necessity had to be immaterial
You don't know that. Theists are accustomed to saying that this or that must be so by definition. Not my definition. A god is any conscious agent capable of creating universes. Nothing else is precluded. This god need not be perfect, kind, immortal, or anything else. When you apply those qualities to gods and call them necessary qualities using the phrase "by definition,"you've already made a logical error by assuming qualities that haven't been demonstrated.
Another reason Parsimony:, there is nothing in the universe that would be better explained with pixies, than without them
Parsimony is why the multiverse hypothesis is preferred to a god hypothesis. No conscious agent needed.
any argument or justification for “God” would be rejected because you decided a priori God is not an option.
That not correct. What's not an option is unjustified belief. Gods aren't off the table, just at the bottom of the list of candidate hypotheses to account for the universe. A god hypothesis is extremely unparsimonious if a multiverse can do the same without a conscious agent.
if someone presents you an unfalsifiable argument for God, you can reject that argument for that reason.
What's an unfalsifiable argument? Hypothesis are falsifiable or not if it is in principle possible to disprove the theory with a piece of evidence properly interpreted.
Arguments aren't falsified. They're rebutted by demonstrating a problem with the premises (assumed truths such as that a god must be immaterial), the evidence offered and its interpretation, the logic and the presence or absence of logical fallacies, and the conclusion reached, which is judged for soundness.
Perhaps you mean an illogical argument, such as the claim that a god exists that is at the same time both perfect and makes errors that it regrets and attempts to rectify. Or that that god would try to correct its error using the same breeding stock that led to its original disappointment.
both the talking God and the farting pixie theories are falsifiable and have been falsified by the fact that they are logically incoherent.
I don't think you know what falsifiable means.
unless you show that the concept of God is incoherent, you have no justification in placing God and pixies farting in the same category
I just did, assuming that by God you mean the Christian god..
Ok justify the claim, that the lying hypothesis is better than the resurrection hypothesis. It would be nice if you also develop your theory , who lied? The apostles? Paul? James,? The authors of the Gospels? The catholic Church? the Pope?
Lying is your word. People make up legends and pass them on generation to generation. The Genesis creation myths are both wrong. Did anybody that contributed to their authorship know that they were telling a falsehood? Probably not. They probably thought God put the ideas in their head. But by the time those stories were a few generations old, nobody knew their provenance.
Christianity had a similar history. The mythology no doubt evolved over centuries until it was canonized. One only need look at the three synoptic gospels to see the stories evolving within a lifetime.
Take a look at
this link, my source for this post, especially the charts, to see the three synoptic gospels compared with one another, divided by category and topic. Look at how much more is contained in Luke and Matthew than Mark. This, to me, is evidence that the mythology was still actively evolving between the time of Mark and the later gospels.
Are these people lying or making mistakes? Not the words I would use, but it is a very human activity whatever we call it.
For all we know that cause and the effect could be simultaneous or occur in any order
The words have no meaning if cause doesn't precede effect. If they were simultaneous, how would you know which to call cause and which to call effect?
Imagine a situation where you present nested hierarchies as evidence common ancestry..... And a YEC answers " ohhhh that's am argument from ignorance, just because we don't know why we see a NH pattern you can't simply invoke your" "common ancestry" of the gaps theory
But we do know why we see nested hierarchies, and they are evidence of common descent.
The theory of evolution is established and will not be overturned absent the existence of a deceiver god or alien race, because if evolution were falsified tomorrow, the evidence that existed prior to the falsifying evidence doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted, and there would be no room for a god that wanted to be known, loved,believed, and worshiped, just a deceptive god or gods or aliens powerful enough to lace the strata with forms looking progressively less modern and dating as older the deeper you go, in stick all of those nested hierarchies into life forms that didn't evolve naturalistically.
The thing is that we have multiple independent documents that confirm that Jesus died on the cross
No document confirms that Jesus ever existed or died. They may claim it, but confirmation must come fro elsewhere.
you are making an argument from ignorance," we don't how to explain Nested hierarchies therefore evolution (common ancestry) dun it"
We do know how to explain nested hierarchies.
First you have to prove that common ancestry in an option, and only then you can propose it as a possible explanation
No, nobody ever has to prove that something is possible before investigating whether it is actual or not.
the idea of an immaterial fart causing the universe is logically incoherent.
I don't know where you get the idea that the source of the universe, if any, had to be immaterial. We probably should call its composition substance, which may be the precursor for what we experience as matter and energy, and even mind..
Just treat the Bible and the documents in the new testament in the same way you would treat any historical document.
I don't consider the contents of the Bible to be history. I treat it about the same way I do the Iliad. There was a Trojan war, but much of the action involves legendary figures that may have a basis in history or not, but have been embellished too much since then as with injecting gods into the stories to take any part of it as fact simply because it is written.
Shouldn't it? If you want to reach rational skeptics, you'll need good evidence and sound argument. Magic meets nether of those criteria.
The thing is that the type of lies or mistakes that you would have to invoke to explain the data would be an unprecedented type of lie or mistake that has never been observed to happen
What data? Unverifiable claims?
A system of false beliefs is hardly unprecedented.
