If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

Just means killing all the first born children in an entire country, aka Passover?

Pharaoh's curse was not to kill the first born of the entire country. It was to kill the first born among the Hebrew. That curse rebounded upon Pharaoh, and the first born of the Egyptians died instead, including Pharaoh's own son.

Per the Bible, if Jesus didn't come back to life after three days, Christianity doesn't exist. It's those claims and the other "magical" claims that make Jesus/God more than just some Jewish preacher.

So you AGAIN think God has no control over his own creation.

Stop trying to change the subject.

Kettle fallacy. It is YOU constantly trying to change the subject. He is simply pointing out ANOTHER of your religions.

 

[Into the Night]

^^ Not a convincing point, and not a powerful argument.

Most of life is based on incomplete information and circumstantial evidence. You would be paralyzed and unable to make any decisions if you decided to wait for comprehensive and complete information.

This actually is quite true. In other words, faith is required for pretty much anything in life.
Faith that when you walk across the street, the guy fitting the brakes on the car approaching did his job correctly.
Faith that you won't get killed in the grocery store you visit.
Faith that your car, bus, train, ship, or aircraft, will continue to operate properly.
Faith that you will be able to obtain sufficient food, drink, and housing that day.
Faith that you won't get fired that day when you go to work.
Faith that your computer and this website will stay up long enough to complete your post.
Faith in your religion(s), whatever they are.
Faith in the traffic light you are approaching is operating correctly, and that cross traffic will stop for it.
Faith that your Amazon order will, in fact, be delivered to the correct address.

I used abductive logic to make an inference to the best explanation.

There is no such thing. There is abductive reasoning as a form of reasoning, having nothing to do with logic.

In brief, for those that haven't heard this term:

Abductive reasoning is based on observation and plausible explanations, attempting to follow the simplest explanation.

Every religion has this form of reasoning, including that used by the Church of No God.

If one uses this type of reasoning as a proof, it causes a Circular Argument fallacy. If it is not used as a proof, it forms the Circular Argument, or Argument of Faith.

This is because assumptions are made as to the cause of what is observed, and the observation itself is subject to the problems of phenomenology.

You have not rationally debunked any of my points other than to blurt out 'god of the gaps'.

No 'gaps'. It's time to end the use of this meaningless buzzword.

You have studiously avoided explaining why it would be more rational to believe that complex matter, mathematical rationality, lawful organization, and fine tuning would be caused by the irrational, by purely inanimate physical reasons, and by random chance.

The usual chant of random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[ZenMode]

Pharaoh's curse was not to kill the first born of the entire country. It was to kill the first born among the Hebrew. That curse rebounded upon Pharaoh, and the first born of the Egyptians died instead, including Pharaoh's own son.

Right, so the "just" God killed a bunch of kids. Why? Did a 2 weeks old have something to do with what was being done to God's people?

So you AGAIN think God has no control over his own creation.

Again, you start with the assumption he exists.

 

[Into the Night]

I don't, because I'm fine saying "I don't know" and not invoking extraterrestrial beings to explain it.

Yet you claim to know. Which is it, dude?

My view is that we can not be able to explain things without invoking gods.

So you DO believe in gods.

You can't explain your list, most of which is opinion anyway. Ok. Why do you have to? Are the only two options "Science needs to explain it all right now" or "God did it"?

Science is not religion. Science is completely atheistic.

The exactly the same approach of ancient man when they couldn't explain things. Hopefully we've evolved from that.

Now you claim you are not evolved?

 

[Into the Night]

Right, so the "just" God killed a bunch of kids. Why?

RQAA

Did a 2 weeks old have something to do with what was being done to God's people?

RQAA

Again, you start with the assumption he exists.

No. YOU started with the assumption he exists.

 

[Into the Night]

"Anything" is possible.
The question has always been, what is the most reasonable explanation?

I provided an extensive enumeration of logical reasoning supporting an inference to the best explanation.

I am still waiting for you to explain specifically why it would be more rational to believe that complex matter, mathematical rationality, lawful organization, and fine tuning would be caused by the irrational, by purely inanimate physical reasons, and by random chance

Go learn English, Clanker. Random words and phrases are meaningless.

 

[Cypress]

I don't, because I'm fine saying "I don't know" and not invoking extraterrestrial beings to explain it.

My view is that we can not be able to explain things without invoking gods. You can't explain your list, most of which is opinion anyway. Ok. Why do you have to? Are the only two options "Science needs to explain it all right now" or "God did it"?

The exactly the same approach of ancient man when they couldn't explain things. Hopefully we've evolved from that.

So on the one hand you say you don't know what caused the Big Bang, what caused the mathematical rationality, lawful organization, and fine tuning of the universe.

But then on the other hand, you are certain this lawful order and design was not caused by some rational agency, entity, or force.

That is a very confused, logically incoherent, and unintelligible worldview.

 

[IBDaMann]

So you still refuse to explain how a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe could be caused by the physically inanimate and irrational.

Chanting dismissed again. The universe is a random dust cloud.

 

[ZenMode]

Yet you claim to know. Which is it, dude?

So you DO believe in gods.

Science is not religion. Science is completely atheistic.

Now you claim you are not evolved?

All ignored: dumb word games.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

RQAA

No. YOU started with the assumption he exists.

Providing explanations as to why your God is a serial killer of children doesn't make it right or, more importantly, make any sense.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I know that, according to the 'stories', gods were visible and active in the ancient world and have completely vanished sometime between then and now and without significant evidence now, there's no valid reason to believe they exist.

Any time anyone of of them wants to prove me wrong, they know where I am.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not falling for "you can't prove it doesn't exist" schtick. If that worked, we should all believe in Russell's Teapot.

I wanna see my pool guy part the waters with a pool brush.

You said that gods are fictional.

That is an assertion.

ANYONE making an assertion assumes the burden of proof for the assertion.

You seem unable to do that...so you are diverting.

That is what many atheists do.

 

[Monad Portal]

So on the one hand you say you don't know what caused the Big Bang, what caused the mathematical rationality, lawful organization, and fine tuning of the universe.

But then on the other hand, you are certain this lawful order and design was not caused by some rational agency, entity, or force.

That is a very confused, logically incoherent, and unintelligible worldview.

the big bang caused mathematical rationality?

dumbest shit ever.

 

[Cypress]

The universe is a random dust cloud!!!

 

[Cypress]

the big bang caused mathematical rationality?
dumbest shit ever!!!!

That's not what I said.
But I have been asking militant atheists to explain to me how this kind of lawful organization and rationality could be caused by random chance and purely inanimate, irrational physical reasons.

 

[Monad Portal]

That's not what I said.

it is what you said.

you're an idiot.

 

[Cypress]

it is what you said.

you're an idiot!!!

So, as expected no explanation given for the cause of the lawful organization of the cosmos.

The big bang, mathematical rationality, and fine tuning are independent events and observations that in principle could have arisen for reasons independent of each other.

 

[Monad Portal]

So, as expected no explanation given for the cause of the lawful organization of the cosmos.

The big bang, mathematical rationality, and fine tuning are independent events and observations that in principle could have arisen for reasons independent of each other.

I don't have to explain shit.

you said the big bang created math.

dumbest shit ever.

 

[Cypress]

you said the big bang created math.

Provide the exact quote where I said exactly that.
I think it's possible that the mathematical laws of physics have an independent existence in some platonic sense.

 

[Monad Portal]

Provide the exact quote where I said exactly that.

deny it first.

 

[Cypress]

deny it first.

^^ So, you are unable to provide the quote to support what you claimed.

I think it's possible that the mathematical laws of physics have an independent existence in some platonic sense.