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.
What is the fallacy of assigning different meanings to words and calling it evidence called?
I don't know . . . what is it called? You and your cohorts are the ones who have absconded with the evidence for God and started calling it "Nature," "Universe," etc.
I don't know . . . what is it called? You and your cohorts are the ones who have absconded with the evidence for God and started calling it "Nature," "Universe," etc.
You have no evidence for god...All you two have are fallacies, innuendo, false equivocation and suppositions...If you had evidence we would have all seen it by now. Nature and the universe are exactly that...They are NOT in any way shape or form god, any more than the first god mankind worshiped (the sun) in prehistory was.
Ad nauseam fallacy "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam," signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it.
True. I wondered until recently why the Christians here persist in still wanting to argue it. It must be for spiritual self-support, because once a topic has been so thoroughly run to ground, any new test of a process via actual rational reasons indicates that such events or processes once attributed to God all occur simply due to natural laws.
Such as the established ones like gravity, magnetism, solar energy flares, natural bio- and inorganic chemical interactions, input of solar or volcanic heat energy thereby driving reactions. And so, why then do we see continued "arguments" that it all actually happened because of some God-head's dreams?
Why? Unnecessary complexity (thus assuming Heavenly Design, "...because it's too complicated and bee-yoot-ee-phul!") or simply so God can be given credit for "design"? Evolution via DNA mutations (also v. well observed and proven, btw...) is obviously capable of it, else it would not be here, and as well, all the existing organisms would be perfect, which, so very obviously, they are NOT.
You have no evidence for god...All you two have are fallacies, innuendo, false equivocation and suppositions...If you had evidence we would have all seen it by now. Nature and the universe are exactly that...They are NOT in any way shape or form god, any more than the first god mankind worshiped (the sun) in prehistory was.
Ad nauseam fallacy "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam," signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown tired of it.
You acknowledge the unequivocal evidence for the existence of what you call "Nature", "The Universe", etc...without issue.
But when the fact is explained to you that "Nature", "The Universe", etc are relabels for "God", and thus the evidence for them are the exact same evidence...you don't reasonably contest the relabeling...you either put forth the known falsehood that the relabeling goes the other way around...or don't contest it at all but just continue to say "there is no evidence for God".
And, the Sun?...well, that is sourced by, and the essence of God. The Sun is part of "God" too...so its perception as God is reasonable.
It's ALL "G-O-D"...you need to get hip to that.
You acknowledge the unequivocal evidence for the existence of what you call "Nature", "The Universe", etc...without issue.
But when the fact is explained to you that "Nature", "The Universe", etc are relabels for "God", and thus the evidence for them are the exact same evidence...you don't reasonably contest the relabeling...you either put forth the known falsehood that the relabeling goes the other way around...or don't contest it at all but just continue to say "there is no evidence for God".
And, the Sun?...well, that is sourced by, and the essence of God. The Sun is part of "God" too...so its perception as God is reasonable.
It's ALL "G-O-D"...you need to get hip to that.
You have it in reverse...It is you and Mystic that have re-labeled nature god. Nature is NOT god. Whatever god there is just an invention anyway.
True. I wondered until recently why the Christians here persist in still wanting to argue it. It must be for spiritual self-support, because once a topic has been so thoroughly run to ground, any new test of a process via actual rational reasons indicates that such events or processes once attributed to God all occur simply due to natural laws.
Such as the established ones like gravity, magnetism, solar energy flares, natural bio- and inorganic chemical interactions, input of solar or volcanic heat energy thereby driving reactions. And so, why then do we see continued "arguments" that it all actually happened because of some God-head's dreams?
Why? Unnecessary complexity (thus assuming Heavenly Design, "...because it's too complicated and bee-yoot-ee-phul!") or simply so God can be given credit for "design"? Evolution via DNA mutations (also v. well observed and proven, btw...) is obviously capable of it, else it would not be here, and as well, all the existing organisms would be perfect, which, so very obviously, they are NOT.
YOU add all the superfluous attributes like perfection, Omni's etc.,, rifle . . . because the people you can't stand do so. There is NO requirement for any of it, rifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
You have it in reverse...It is you and Mystic that have re-labeled nature god. Nature is NOT god. Whatever god there is just an invention anyway.
You pretend we are trying to change the label but it has already been changed from the ORIGINAL Label . . . GOD . . . used by the first scientists. We are still looking for a SCIENTIFIC justification for doing so and none is forthcoming . . . just assertion and arrogance.
You acknowledge the unequivocal evidence for the existence of what you call "Nature", "The Universe", etc...without issue.
The problem with that argument is that we can identify the components that comprise nature and the universe down to their sub-atomic level. We know that volcanos don't erupt because enough virgins weren't sacrificed to the volcano gods; we know that deluges aren't cause because some god wants to cleanse the world of sin; we know that hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and tornados aren't the result of god's punishment for homosexuality; we even know that galaxies aren't formed because some god decrees that they should come into being. We say that these things are the result of forces of nature because it is short hand for the forces that we know through specific empirical evidence are caused by specific interactions and are not acts of gods.
The problem with that argument is that we can identify the components that comprise nature and the universe down to their sub-atomic level. We know that volcanos don't erupt because enough virgins weren't sacrificed to the volcano gods; we know that deluges aren't cause because some god wants to cleanse the world of sin; we know that hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and tornados aren't the result of god's punishment for homosexuality; we even know that galaxies aren't formed because some god decrees that they should come into being. We say that these things are the result of forces of nature because it is short hand for the forces that we know through specific empirical evidence are caused by specific interactions and are not acts of gods.
Forces of Nature is a euphemism for how our reality operates. Nature is a specious word pretending to identify what it is that is operating . . . what our reality IS . . . but it doesn't. It was created to replace the word that DOES identify what is operating . . . God.
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.
