Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only one who refuses to recognize his bias is you, Arq. Your "default" is NOT an unbiased one nor is it remotely objective. A truly objective position is one that makes no "default" assumptions and considers every possibility at each new inference applying neutral tests and eliminating no possibility that cannot absolutely be established to be false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That there is no purpose or design to our reality has NOT "been verified about the world we know" nor has it been falsified. So your claim to a verified "default" is bogus, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Wrong again. Mystic your education and intellect allows you to dress up the stock theist fallacies very nicely but they are still the stock theist fallacies.
"100% proof" is not the question; it's where the evidence points.
"Appeal to unknowns" - what we know is the default, the rest is speculation or faith -claims.
We do not have to 'verify' what science has verified. The case for Something More' has not stood up to scrutiny. I hardly need tell you how I/D collapsed at the Dover trial, or how your efforts to make the Hard Question support your Beliefs about a cosmic Mind didn't do anything of the kind.
The burden of proof is on you to validate your claims, not for the naturalist-materialist side to debunk them, though that is in fact often done.
As always, you have nothing but Faith -claims and and inverted logic to support your case. Why oh why do we have to do the same weary old arguments over and over. You have been Sussed; you can't fool us. You mind has been screwed by godfaith and you have ruined a fine and erudite mind by refusal to listen and refusal to learn.
Read the bold above about a truly objective position and provide your counter-argument that supports your unjustified adoption of a default. You keep making claims to a verified default without ever justifying it. Apparently, you think your preference for one is sufficient. The burden is on you to justify your preference.
The creation of the term Nature and its adjective "natural" are useless because we do not actually know WHAT they essentially refer to. Just because we can find out HOW those laws and processes work, that does NOT mean we know their actual Source. What we call Nature could be called God and what we call natural laws or processes could just as easily be called God's laws and processes. It is presumptuous to pretend that our artificial label created to counter the religious autocrats in the early days of science must be the default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Another fallacy or trick of the religious apologist - trying to pretend that the way things are are not the way they are by semantic tinkering. We all know what is meant by natural: the way the world works without any need for a god being involved. I already referred to a scientific and Legally supported test case to validate just that by default, because the best shot of the ID crowd went down the tube.
You just make yourself look a laughing -stock by these Creationist tricks. Why, old mate, don't you go back to your own pet thread where you can dicker and wangle to your heart's content, rather than waste your time and exasperate everyone else (and I'm getting pretty tired of having to deal with the same debunked points more times than I've damned the Saturday traffic)? You aren't fooling anybody.
Another fallacy or trick of the atheist apologist - associating those they cannot refute with those who have been refuted or can be refuted - like Creationists or ID protagonists. You know I am neither of those yet you repeatedly try to associate me with them. Why do you make yourself look a laughing -stock by pretending to know whether or not I have ever been "debunked" when you do NOT possess the knowledge to make any such evaluation?
The time it takes is inversely proportional to the amount the atheists hates religion. The more an atheists has to change science to get away from religion the faster we prove that denomination of atheism wrong.
What as that got to do with reality?
Change the record, this one is getting really boring.
Like you, I just have my opinion. How exactly do you KNOW it has not ever been a God?
Pick ANY scientific finding. Was it ever 'God did it'? Never. That's how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You have the order wrong. Until science, it has always BEEN God. The religious autocrats and their horrendous benighted treatment of the progenitors of science forced the creation of the term Nature to avoid their religious authoritarianism. The label God does not necessarily add anything that needs additional evidence and is no different than the label natural.
Try responding to what I write, it would be a great help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Yes, you are pretending that when you default to the label Nature or natural laws AS IF they explain anything different from a reference to God and God's laws.
Following the evidence is pretending? Wrong, NOT following the evidence (cough, fake God helmet experiment, cough) is pretending.
Last edited by Harry Diogenes; 05-27-2018 at 12:06 AM..
Reason: fixed quote
Read the bold above about a truly objective position and provide your counter-argument that supports your unjustified adoption of a default. You keep making claims to a verified default without ever justifying it. Apparently, you think your preference for one is sufficient. The burden is on you to justify your preference.
icr.org.
The fake 'God helmet' experiment you neglected to mention.
Every other dishonest creationist argument.
Another fallacy or trick of the atheist apologist - associating those they cannot refute with those who have been refuted or can be refuted - like Creationists or ID protagonists. You know I am neither of those yet you repeatedly try to associate me with them. Why do you make yourself look a laughing -stock by pretending to know whether or not I have ever been "debunked" when you do NOT possess the knowledge to make any such evaluation?
Read the bold above about a truly objective position and provide your counter-argument that supports your unjustified adoption of a default. You keep making claims to a verified default without ever justifying it. Apparently, you think your preference for one is sufficient. The burden is on you to justify your preference.
You are still not getting it, old mate. Whatever your odd mix of Godfaith and "Philosophy" as the apologists dub the fiddled reasoning they devise to try to make a case, says, what is validated by science is all that we can rely on as a starting base for constructing theories about unresolved questions. This is the default position. It is not an assumption, it is a validated model of reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Another fallacy or trick of the atheist apologist - associating those they cannot refute with those who have been refuted or can be refuted - like Creationists or ID protagonists. You know I am neither of those yet you repeatedly try to associate me with them. Why do you make yourself look a laughing -stock by pretending to know whether or not I have ever been "debunked" when you do NOT possess the knowledge to make any such evaluation?
You are still not getting it. You brain is so screwed with defence mechanisms and denial that you can't think straight. That's why all the Education and certificates that you push in my face are no more that rhetorical tricks to buy the argument with Authority when you don't have anything better.
It is true that I didn't so much debunk you on your personal "I am so ****ing brilliant" thread as point out to Mattie, who is about the only one with the staying power to respond to your overlong and under-rewarding posts, that your 'philosophised science' was just fiddled science to try to make it support your beliefs, and looked just like the Analogy -science that I reminded you had been postulated by you as some kind of Unknown science that you nevertheless knew about.
In fact, it hit me that it was the same thing.
You denied that one, and now you deny this. Am I a laughing -stock? If anyone (other than those with an Agenda) want to gently tell me that i am making a fool of myself and how and why, (as Gaylenwoof politely did) I invite them. I also invite them to otherwise confirm what I have sussed out about you, as Sussed you I believe I surely have.
I say again, while you are very good at throwing our obscurantist jargon - laden smokescreens so I need to point out what you are actually saying (which isn't always what you actually wanted to say ) people can Suss you now and your bamboozling days are over.
Have a Very nice weekend old mate, as I'm not trying to hurt you (Your concrete carapace of conceit is impervious to anything short of a supernova, anyway) but to help you.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-27-2018 at 05:06 AM..
Another fallacy or trick of the atheist apologist - associating those they cannot refute with those who have been refuted or can be refuted - like Creationists or ID protagonists. You know I am neither of those yet you repeatedly try to associate me with them. Why do you make yourself look a laughing -stock by pretending to know whether or not I have ever been "debunked" when you do NOT possess the knowledge to make any such evaluation?
They aren't fooling anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You brain is so screwed with defence mechanisms and denial that you can't think straight. That's why all the Education and certificates that you push in my face are no more that rhetorical tricks to buy the argument with Authority when you don't have anything better.
) people can Suss you now and your bamboozling days are over.
