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 and Harry need to stop presuming you have ANY authority to evaluate or proclaim one-liner judgments without explanation or substantive rebuttal.
No.
The problem here is that we have a poster who seems to think that if he write volumes, it makes him right. Unfortunately, all he's doing is proving the point that there is no clear evidence that deities exist. He's trying to explain through his personal logic that they exist. That hasn't worked before. It isn't working now. It won't work in the future.
There is a difference between opinion and "testable evidence".
The problem here is that we have a poster who seems to think that if he write volumes, it makes him right. Unfortunately, all he's doing is proving the point that there is no clear evidence that deities exist. He's trying to explain through his personal logic that they exist. That hasn't worked before. It isn't working now. It won't work in the future.
There is a difference between opinion and "testable evidence".
There MAY be??? How on earth could he NOT be disingenuous when dishonestly asking for proof that Peter resurrected a cooked fish???!!!!???
A disingenuous response to resurrection claims. Both are equally improbable, but as people are aware of the story of Jesus, I include the story of Peter resurrecting a cooked fish (an early Christian claim) to remind those too familiar with the Jesus resurrection story just how ridiculous the claim is.
Jesus walked on water - no, I do not believe that.
Peter resurrected a cooked fish - did early Christian really believe that?
There was no dishonesty in me pointing out Christians have extraordinary beliefs.
And I am not asking for proof, just credible, testable evidence. It is disingenuous and dishonest to pretend we are asking for proof.
One valid point - which I believe I was the first to make - is that no claim about the origin of the natural order can be proved by evidence from within the natural order. An attempt to explain the origin of the natural order is necessarily speculative. "There is no deity" is just as speculative as "There is a deity." This does not mean all speculation is pointless or that all speculation has equal merit. The OP pretty obviously recognized this point, or he would not have posted his "invitation" in the A&A forum.
The more pertinent point - which I made repeatedly - is that there is a vast body of scientific evidence spanning many disciplines that is at least consistent with deism and theism. Secular scientists and even atheists acknowledge this fact ...
Do they? You keep making claims such as these, but as usual provide no evidence for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
... without accepting deism or theism. This body of evidence is called "fine-tuning" throughout the scientific community because it is, at the least, suggestive of a tuner.
Which on the evidence we have, the tuner must also be complex, and therefore less credible, not equal. The fine tuning argument is an argument against intelligent design, hence the ad hoc immaterial being excuse that you avoid explaining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You and the atheists who have contributed here apparently think the valid point is (to quote Harry) that there is "no credible evidence" for deism or theism. This is ignorant and dishonest. It's such an atheist meme that the atheists here don't even care whether it makes sense within the context of a discussion.
The "no credible evidence" meme flows from an a priori assumption that evidence for fine-tuning cannot be considered as supportive of deism or theism because deism and theism are too improbable to be taken seriously. This is intellectually dishonest and is why serious atheists regard the New Atheists like Richard Dawkins as an embarrassment.
It is ignorant and dishonest to point out the truth? And it is not an a priori assumption, it is an a priori evidence, and it ids dishonest to dismiss evidence as assumption.
You and Harry need to stop presuming you have ANY authority to evaluate or proclaim one-liner judgments without explanation or substantive rebuttal.
You need to stop pretending having the authority is presuming to have that authority, AND that I have not provided explanation or substantive rebuttal.
YOU need to stop presuming you have ANY authority to evaluate without explanation or substantive rebuttal.
The problem here is that we have a poster who seems to think that if he write volumes, it makes him right. Unfortunately, all he's doing is proving the point that there is no clear evidence that deities exist. He's trying to explain through his personal logic that they exist. That hasn't worked before. It isn't working now. It won't work in the future.
There is a difference between opinion and "testable evidence".
This thread is pretty clearly turning into "Irkle is making us so angry we can't even think straight," so I will bow out. I've made my points and folks you and Harry have made yours, although I don't believe the points you have made are the ones you think you have made.
In your rage, you seem to overlook that I am the one who introduced and repeatedly made the point that asking for "testable/verifiable" proof of the existence or nonexistence of a deity is a category mistake.
I am not trying to "explain" through my "personal logic" that a deity exists, whatever that is supposed to mean. I have been trying to stay within the framework of the thread, which roughly concerns the epistemology of belief and unbelief.
You, like Harry, posit straw men. I am not talking about "opinion" versus "testable evidence." Inferences, deductions and informed speculation on the basis of scientific evidence are not "opinion." They are employed in every scientific discipline. The reality is that the evidence for so-called fine-tuning is consistent with deism and theism. It doesn't mandate deistic or theistic beliefs; it is consistent with them, but non-theistic explanations are certainly possible. I say no more and no less.
I'm an exceptionally intelligent, well-educated, well-informed and highly articulate person who has dedicated decades to these matters. I am supremely self-confident and unapologetically arrogant insofar as the matters which are discussed here are concerned. I'm not here to mentally masturbate or swap inane one-liners. If someone wants to play that game with me, I will unleash Irkle and make them wish they hadn't.
You don't like self-confident, in-your-face Christians. Noted. Chill out. Put me on ignore. To the extent you insist on persisting with your straw man arguments, non sequiturs and snarky observations, I will repeat: The points you are making are, I believe, quite the opposite of the ones you think you are making and are not furthering whatever cause you are attempting to further.
This thread is pretty clearly turning into "Irkle is making us so angry we can't even think straight," so I will bow out. I've made my points and folks you and Harry have made yours, although I don't believe the points you have made are the ones you think you have made.
In your rage, you seem to overlook that I am the one who introduced and repeatedly made the point that asking for "testable/verifiable" proof of the existence or nonexistence of a deity is a category mistake.
I am not trying to "explain" through my "personal logic" that a deity exists, whatever that is supposed to mean. I have been trying to stay within the framework of the thread, which roughly concerns the epistemology of belief and unbelief.
You, like Harry, posit straw men. I am not talking about "opinion" versus "testable evidence." Inferences, deductions and informed speculation on the basis of scientific evidence are not "opinion." They are employed in every scientific discipline. The reality is that the evidence for so-called fine-tuning is consistent with deism and theism. It doesn't mandate deistic or theistic beliefs; it is consistent with them, but non-theistic explanations are certainly possible. I say no more and no less.
I'm an exceptionally intelligent, well-educated, well-informed and highly articulate person who has dedicated decades to these matters. I am supremely self-confident and unapologetically arrogant insofar as the matters which are discussed here are concerned. I'm not here to mentally masturbate or swap inane one-liners. If someone wants to play that game with me, I will unleash Irkle and make them wish they hadn't.
You don't like self-confident, in-your-face Christians. Noted. Chill out. Put me on ignore. To the extent you insist on persisting with your straw man arguments, non sequiturs and snarky observations, I will repeat: The points you are making are, I believe, quite the opposite of the ones you think you are making and are not furthering whatever cause you are attempting to further.
You made your points, but provided nothing that amounted "testable evidence".
Rage? Hyperbole much?
We're all happy that you declare yourself to be: "exceptionally intelligent, well-educated, well-informed and highly articulate".
I RARELY put people on ignore. There are several I don't respond to, but still read many of their posts.
This thread is pretty clearly turning into "Irkle is making us so angry we can't even think straight," so I will bow out. I've made my points and folks you and Harry have made yours, although I don't believe the points you have made are the ones you think you have made.
Yes, you lost and are now pretending otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
In your rage, you seem to overlook that I am the one who introduced and repeatedly made the point that asking for "testable/verifiable" proof of the existence or nonexistence of a deity is a category mistake.
And we explained (with no rage) what that logically entailed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You, like Harry, posit straw men. I am not talking about "opinion" versus "testable evidence." Inferences, deductions and informed speculation on the basis of scientific evidence are not "opinion."
But you ignore the science, so basically all you have are opinions and your usual fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
The reality is that the evidence for so-called fine-tuning is consistent with deism and theism. It doesn't mandate deistic or theistic beliefs; it is consistent with them, but non-theistic explanations are certainly possible. I say no more and no less.
And I have explained based on what we observe why fine tuning is a problem for deistic or theistic beliefs, not for naturalism. Your only response were ad hominems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I'm an exceptionally intelligent, well-educated, well-informed and highly articulate person who has dedicated decades to these matters. I am supremely self-confident and unapologetically arrogant insofar as the matters which are discussed here are concerned. I'm not here to mentally masturbate or swap inane one-liners. If someone wants to play that game with me, I will unleash Irkle and make them wish they hadn't.
You are a creationist who thinks Habermas and Licona make valid arguments. We do not regret responding to your substantial posts, we enjoy the target practice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You don't like self-confident, in-your-face Christians. Noted. Chill out. Put me on ignore. To the extent you insist on persisting with your straw man arguments, non sequiturs and snarky observations, I will repeat: The points you are making are, I believe, quite the opposite of the ones you think you are making and are not furthering whatever cause you are attempting to further.
This thread is pretty clearly turning into "Irkle is making us so angry we can't even think straight,"
Keep telling yourself that, it's clearly working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
so I will bow out.
About as likely as a deity existing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I've made my points and folks you and Harry have made yours, although I don't believe the points you have made are the ones you think you have made.
More misplaced belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
In your rage
More like Guffaw, at every post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
you seem to overlook that I am the one who introduced and repeatedly made the point that asking for "testable/verifiable" proof of the existence or nonexistence of a deity is a category mistake.
I give you props for this one. (see below)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I, being a rational sort, cheerfully acknowledge that no such evidence exists - or could exist. Every Christian apologist would acknowledge this. Every Christian scientist, from Nobel laureates on down, would acknowledge this. And yet they all believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
It doesn't mandate deistic or theistic beliefs; it is consistent with them, but non-theistic explanations are certainly possible. I say no more and no less.
Yeah but you also said this about alternate possibilities:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
positing alternative explanations. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I'm an exceptionally intelligent, well-educated, well-informed and highly articulate person who has dedicated decades to these matters. I am supremely self-confident and unapologetically arrogant insofar as the matters which are discussed here are concerned.
That does it, I'm a believer now, Dunning-Kruger at it's finest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I'm not here to mentally masturbate or swap inane one-liners.
I offer the above quote, as relates to mental masturbation, and every other page as relates to inane one-liners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
If someone wants to play that game with me, I will unleash Irkle and make them wish they hadn't.
Watching someone punching air, while imagining they are a world conqueror is good entertainment, do continue...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
You don't like self-confident, in-your-face Christians. Noted. Chill out. Put me on ignore. To the extent you insist on persisting with your straw man arguments, non sequiturs and snarky observations
I'll bet your ignore list is empty, it would be in contest with your 'mental masturbation'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
I will repeat: The points you are making are, I believe, quite the opposite of the ones you think you are making and are not furthering whatever cause you are attempting to further.
How very theistic, and without testable/verifiable evidence.
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.
How on earth could he NOT be disingenuous when dishonestly asking for proof that Peter resurrected a cooked fish???!!!!???
