1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

AGAIN, WHAT IS EVIDENCE?  I have given much evidence and you have rebutted none of it with any of your own.  You have none to rebut it with.

[shadowhawk]

Evidence
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.  It can be testimonial - statements or the spoken or written word from the witness(es).  It can be Physical -  consisting of tangible things you can see touch smell or taste.  Articles such as hairs, fibers, latent fingerprints and biological material are physical.

Evidence can come from a document, object or event.

Evidence may come from an eye witness.

Evidence can come from experts, someone who has studied the subject.

Evidence may be hearsay.  Someone else saw it.

Evidence may be Circumstantial or indirect.  In an important sense, however, all evidence is  circumstantial because no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inferences.  Absolute proof does not exist.

Evidence can be historical facts.  It nay either be Primary evidence or Secondary evidence.  Primary evidence is evidence that actually comes from the time being studied.  Secondary evidence is is evidence that does not come from the time being studied.  The Bible is primary evidence.  A movie on the life of Christ is secondary.  The more sources the better for historical evidence.  Events only happen once.  Then they become history.
http://www.apologeti...=10&article=187
 http://www.westarkch...trabiblical.htm

Evidence may be reasoned or logical.  It can be argued.

Statistical evidence.  Numbers.




 

[addx]

AGAIN, WHAT IS EVIDENCE?  I have given much evidence and you have rebutted none of it with any of your own.  You have none to rebut it with.

 

If you repeat this enough times it will become true, eventually, one day, when God descends from heavens to make it so. 

[sthira]

The Bible is primary evidence.

Says who?

[DukeNukem]

A little more on faith that I saw published today:

 

"Here he floats the old canard that science, like religion, is based on faith. And the facts of science are—OMG—changeable!  Somehow that’s seen as a vice, while unchangeable religious dictums are considered virtues.  I won’t get into that, and I’ve explained previously why “faith” in the religious sense simply plays no role in science (scientists have “confidence” in results in proportion to their supporting evidence, not “faith,” which in religion is belief without evidence sufficient to convince all rational people.)"
http://whyevolutioni...io-legislature/

 

SH, your understand of faith is off-base (with regard to science), and part of the reason you cannot make any sense to us here who have the correct understanding of the word.

[shadowhawk]

 

AGAIN, WHAT IS EVIDENCE?  I have given much evidence and you have rebutted none of it with any of your own.  You have none to rebut it with.

 

If you repeat this enough times it will become true, eventually, one day, when God descends from heavens to make it so. 

 

Yes, and your responses are evidence for something but it is not about the topic.  This is the definition of evidence.  If you have something meaningful to add to it, lets hear it.  http://www.longecity...-51#entry682966

Edited by shadowhawk, 22 August 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

The Bible is primary evidence.

Says who?

 

It came from eyewitnesses at the time it took place.  There are both Christian and non christian historical evidences.  It is a primary source.  See my section three, evidence for Christianity where I gave some evidence.

 

Evidence can be historical facts.  It nay either be Primary evidence or Secondary evidence.  Primary evidence is evidence that actually comes from the time being studied.  Secondary evidence is is evidence that does not come from the time being studied.  The Bible is primary evidence.  A movie on the life of Christ is secondary.  The more sources the better for historical evidence.  Events only happen once.  Then they become history.

[shadowhawk]

DukeNukem:  A little more on faith that I saw published today:
"Here he floats the old canard that science, like religion, is based on faith. And the facts of science are—OMG—changeable!  Somehow that’s seen as a vice, while unchangeable religious dictums are considered virtues.  I won’t get into that, and I’ve explained previously why “faith” in the religious sense simply plays no role in science (scientists have “confidence” in results in proportion to their supporting evidence, not “faith,” which in religion is belief without evidence sufficient to convince all rational people.)"
http://whyevolutioni...io-legislature/
SH, your understand of faith is off-base (with regard to science), and part of the reason you cannot make any sense to us here who have the correct understanding of the word.

Here again is “faith” as found in the dictionaries, lexicons, and scholarly sources.  It is the way it is used in Christianity and the Bible.  It has always been my understanding of Faith.  Faith is trust but it is not blind nor without evidence.
http://www.longecity...-50#entry682529

As for Science and faith, I included a scientist who got his doctorate from Stanford and teaches at MIT.  Here is his view of faith.  Few views of scientific subjects convince all rational people as you claim.  My son is a scientist and they fight like cats and dogs.  Religion is not belief without evidence.  Your quote did not define faith but I suspect they may be operating on a cartoon definition as to the meaning of the word.  I haven’t seen you or anyone else deal with a correct definition that is not off base.  You want to create a cartoon out of this so you can create a straw man.




 

[serp777]

 

DukeNukem:  A little more on faith that I saw published today:
"Here he floats the old canard that science, like religion, is based on faith. And the facts of science are—OMG—changeable!  Somehow that’s seen as a vice, while unchangeable religious dictums are considered virtues.  I won’t get into that, and I’ve explained previously why “faith” in the religious sense simply plays no role in science (scientists have “confidence” in results in proportion to their supporting evidence, not “faith,” which in religion is belief without evidence sufficient to convince all rational people.)"
http://whyevolutioni...io-legislature/
SH, your understand of faith is off-base (with regard to science), and part of the reason you cannot make any sense to us here who have the correct understanding of the word.

Here again is “faith” as found in the dictionaries, lexicons, and scholarly sources.  It is the way it is used in Christianity and the Bible.  It has always been my understanding of Faith.  Faith is trust but it is not blind nor without evidence.
http://www.longecity...-50#entry682529

As for Science and faith, I included a scientist who got his doctorate from Stanford and teaches at MIT.  Here is his view of faith.  Few views of scientific subjects convince all rational people as you claim.  My son is a scientist and they fight like cats and dogs.  Religion is not belief without evidence.  Your quote did not define faith but I suspect they may be operating on a cartoon definition as to the meaning of the word.  I haven’t seen you or anyone else deal with a correct definition that is not off base.  You want to create a cartoon out of this so you can create a straw man.




 

 

Nobody, besides Christian, care about your pointlessly picked definition of faith. You can believe whatever you want, and hence you're religious. Doesn't make it true because a few guys says it is. 

 

 

The Bible is primary evidence.

Says who?

 

It came from eyewitnesses at the time it took place.  There are both Christian and non christian historical evidences.  It is a primary source.  See my section three, evidence for Christianity where I gave some evidence.

 

Evidence can be historical facts.  It nay either be Primary evidence or Secondary evidence.  Primary evidence is evidence that actually comes from the time being studied.  Secondary evidence is is evidence that does not come from the time being studied.  The Bible is primary evidence.  A movie on the life of Christ is secondary.  The more sources the better for historical evidence.  Events only happen once.  Then they become history.

 

Mohammad has so many historical facts, and the most accurate ones since he's the most recent. better convert to Islam. 

[shadowhawk]

This is no argument.  Faith has a meaning and we let people define what they mean by a word.  You don't create straw men and put words  in their mouth that are nonsense so you can knock them down.  Faith has centuries of usage among Christians and broad use among the Church.  So you are invested in your cartoon (and have posted numbers of them) in order to put forth your nonsense.  I have made it very clear what faith is and if this does not meet your purpose than so be it.  I am going on and not going to waste my time further.

[shadowhawk]

serp777:  better convert to Islam.

 

Go ahead.

[serp777]

This is no argument.  Faith has a meaning and we let people define what they mean by a word.  You don't create straw men and put words  in their mouth that are nonsense so you can knock them down.  Faith has centuries of usage among Christians and broad use among the Church.  So you are invested in your cartoon (and have posted numbers of them) in order to put forth your nonsense.  I have made it very clear what faith is and if this does not meet your purpose than so be it.  I am going on and not going to waste my time further.

"This is no argument. "

 

Then you don't know what an argument is.

 

"You don't create straw men and put words  in their mouth that are nonsense so you can knock them down. "

 

A lie. Your lying is unbelievable. 

 

"So you are invested in your cartoon (and have posted numbers of them) in order to put forth your nonsense.  "

 

Media fallacy and unsupported statement. 

 

"I have made it very clear what faith is and if this does not meet your purpose than so be it."

 

No reasonable person agrees with your definition, including many christians. 

 

"I am going on and not going to waste my time further."

 

You've already wasted 45 pages of time on this thread, because no one is being persuaded by your arguments. 

 

serp777:  better convert to Islam.

 

Go ahead.

 

 

I am not persuaded by the religious arguments; this was a suggestion for you since you're so convinced by historical facts. 

[shadowhawk]

And you aren't convinced by historical evidence or any evidence for that matter.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  So I am going on.  If you want to believe your cartoons go ahead.

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 August 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[shadowhawk]

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN Infinite regress and multiverse.

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 23 August 2014 - 11:53 PM.

[serp777]

And you aren't convinced by historical evidence or any evidence for that matter.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  So I am going on.  If you want to believe your cartoons go ahead.

 

If you want to believe your ridiculous William lane craig videos go ahead. 

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN Infinite regress and multiverse.

 

 

[shadowhawk]

 

And you aren't convinced by historical evidence or any evidence for that matter.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  So I am going on.  If you want to believe your cartoons go ahead.

 

If you want to believe your ridiculous William lane craig videos go ahead. 

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN Infinite regress and multiverse.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with William lane Craig.  So what if it did.  Genetic fallacy.  It still could be right.   Are you OK?  Also God is not an infinite regress of cause and effect..

 

http://www.countingt...eudo-science-2/

“The joke goes like this: After a lecture on the universe, an old lady approaches. “Nice lecture,” she says, “but the Earth is really sitting on the back of a large turtle.” Seeing the flaw, the lecturer asks “What is supporting the turtle?” She responds “Very clever young man, but it’s turtles all the way down.”

I’m reminded of that joke every time I read yet another supposedly “scientific” article about the so-called “multiverse.” That’s the belief that our universe – all of intergalactic space – is but an insignificant part of a much greater scheme, a collection of universes called the “multiverse.” In their attempt to evade the mystery of why anything exists (see last week’s blog), and the mystery of why our universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life, Atheists typically believe the multiverse contains an infinite number of universes, and that those universes can somehow spin off new universes with different laws, dimensions, and constants. So they say our universe was created by a different universe, which in turn was created by a third universe, and so on and so on and so on, to infinity and beyond. You get the point. It’s turtles all the way down.

God could have created more than one universe. But Atheists are drawn to belief in an infinite multiverse. They pretend it solves the unshakeable mysteries of why anything exists and why our universe is fine-tuned for life.

Believe what you want, and I have no problem if you want to believe in the multiverse. But please be honest – admit there is no scientific evidence. And that belief in the multiverse can never be proved wrong. That’s a “deal breaker” for Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt, who helped develop the multiverse concept, and now rejects it because it can be manipulated to predict anything. This from the Washington Post two months ago:

    “It makes the theory a nonscientific theory,” Steinhardt said. “For the last 400 years, most people would say the key thing that distinguishes science from non-science is that scientific ideas have to be subject to tests. Some people are nowadays thinking, no, that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. That’s a mega-issue.”

There is no science supporting the multiverse, no facts whatsoever. And don’t believe articles earlier this area suggesting that patterns in the photons released after the Big Bang imply a multiverse, what those articles conveniently omit or downplay is that those photons were released 380,000 years after the Big Bang. They sure didn’t come from another universe.

If the question is whether human ingenuity can create theories about multiple universes, the answer is a definite “yes.” But if the question is whether there is a single shred of scientific evidence that can only be explained by the existence of a multiverse, or whether there is any way to test the multiverse theory, the answer to both is a resounding “no.”

And Atheists don’t want to admit the serious mathematical problems embedded in the concept of infinity. Infinity is weird. Multiply it by any finite number of incredibly small numbers and it’s still infinity, it’s not one bit smaller. If you do the math, you see that, if the multiverse exists, then everything that has ever happened in our universe has happened an infinite number of times in the multiverse. Chapter 9 of Counting To God describes this and other “Problems with the Multiverse.”“

http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0963270168
 

[serp777]

 

 

And you aren't convinced by historical evidence or any evidence for that matter.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  So I am going on.  If you want to believe your cartoons go ahead.

 

If you want to believe your ridiculous William lane craig videos go ahead. 

TURTLES ALL THE WAY DOWN Infinite regress and multiverse.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with William lane Craig.  So what if it did.  Genetic fallacy.  It still could be right.   Are you OK?  Also God is not an infinite regress of cause and effect..

 

http://www.countingt...eudo-science-2/

“The joke goes like this: After a lecture on the universe, an old lady approaches. “Nice lecture,” she says, “but the Earth is really sitting on the back of a large turtle.” Seeing the flaw, the lecturer asks “What is supporting the turtle?” She responds “Very clever young man, but it’s turtles all the way down.”

I’m reminded of that joke every time I read yet another supposedly “scientific” article about the so-called “multiverse.” That’s the belief that our universe – all of intergalactic space – is but an insignificant part of a much greater scheme, a collection of universes called the “multiverse.” In their attempt to evade the mystery of why anything exists (see last week’s blog), and the mystery of why our universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life, Atheists typically believe the multiverse contains an infinite number of universes, and that those universes can somehow spin off new universes with different laws, dimensions, and constants. So they say our universe was created by a different universe, which in turn was created by a third universe, and so on and so on and so on, to infinity and beyond. You get the point. It’s turtles all the way down.

God could have created more than one universe. But Atheists are drawn to belief in an infinite multiverse. They pretend it solves the unshakeable mysteries of why anything exists and why our universe is fine-tuned for life.

Believe what you want, and I have no problem if you want to believe in the multiverse. But please be honest – admit there is no scientific evidence. And that belief in the multiverse can never be proved wrong. That’s a “deal breaker” for Princeton physicist Paul Steinhardt, who helped develop the multiverse concept, and now rejects it because it can be manipulated to predict anything. This from the Washington Post two months ago:

    “It makes the theory a nonscientific theory,” Steinhardt said. “For the last 400 years, most people would say the key thing that distinguishes science from non-science is that scientific ideas have to be subject to tests. Some people are nowadays thinking, no, that doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. That’s a mega-issue.”

There is no science supporting the multiverse, no facts whatsoever. And don’t believe articles earlier this area suggesting that patterns in the photons released after the Big Bang imply a multiverse, what those articles conveniently omit or downplay is that those photons were released 380,000 years after the Big Bang. They sure didn’t come from another universe.

If the question is whether human ingenuity can create theories about multiple universes, the answer is a definite “yes.” But if the question is whether there is a single shred of scientific evidence that can only be explained by the existence of a multiverse, or whether there is any way to test the multiverse theory, the answer to both is a resounding “no.”

And Atheists don’t want to admit the serious mathematical problems embedded in the concept of infinity. Infinity is weird. Multiply it by any finite number of incredibly small numbers and it’s still infinity, it’s not one bit smaller. If you do the math, you see that, if the multiverse exists, then everything that has ever happened in our universe has happened an infinite number of times in the multiverse. Chapter 9 of Counting To God describes this and other “Problems with the Multiverse.”“

http://www.amazon.co...h/dp/0963270168
 

 

 

The meme had nothing to do with this either and yet you brought it up. Are you drinking or just bad short term memeory? Infinity is weird and confusing to you, which therefore makes it impossible? Argument from incredulity. 

 

"Also God is not an infinite regress of cause and effect"

 

Yes he is. If the universe cannot be infinite and eternal then neither can God. You can't justify a double standard based on nothing. The God statement doesn't justify why something came from nothing. Why is there God rather than nothing? You're left with exactly the same problem. 

 

​There is also significant, but non conclusive evidence that supports the multiverse, such as inflation.

 

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Multiverse

 

This has been brought up many times in the thread but you have ignored it because it contradicts your fantasy that evidence does not exist 

Edited by serp777, 24 August 2014 - 12:44 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Homunculus Fallacy

(also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress)

Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress.

Logical Form:

Phenomenon X needs to be explained.

Reason Y is given.

Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

Example #1:

Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain?

Ernie: Think of it as a little guy in your brain watching the movie projected by your eyes.

Bert: Ok, but what is happening in the little guy in your head’s brain?

Ernie: Well, think of it as a little guy in his brain watching a movie...

Explanation: This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing.  It is fallacious reasoning to accept an explanation that creates this kind of endless loop that lacks any explanatory value.

Example #2:

Dicky: So how do you think life began?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded this planet with life billions of years ago.

Dicky: OK, but how did that alien life form begin?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded that planet with life.

Explanation: This fallacy can be tricky because maybe it is true that aliens are responsible for spreading life, so the answers might be technically right, but the question implied is how life ultimately began, which this form of reasoning will not answer.

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 August 2014 - 12:54 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Reply to serp777

 

You have a pantheistic God who is subject to all the limitations of Space/time.  The Christian God is beyond the world and of a different nature than the world.  There never was a time when there was nothing.  God always was.  God is.  Everything else came into being.  It began.  

You cannot receive any information beyond the horizon because it is as far as you can see or from which information can get to you.   We can not see or measure anything beyond the inflationary horizon of the cosmos, therefore it is not evidence for a multi verse.  Inflation in a closed universe fits all the observations, without requiring a multi verse.  Ockham’s razor,

Infinity of regress is an unattainable state rather than a large number.  Things in a cause and effect chain of events cannot be infinite.    David Hilbert (1964): “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to.”

If there were an infinite number of universes and you could actually see them (and you couldn’t) you could never know that because you could not count them in a finite amount of time.  Such an idea is beyond a space time creature with a beginning.  So the idea is not testable and can never be scientific.

And your clam that this has been brought up many times before in this thread is bogus nonsense.  You can easily prove me wrong by citing an example.

[addx]

 

Homunculus Fallacy

(also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress)

Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress.

Logical Form:

Phenomenon X needs to be explained.

Reason Y is given.

Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

Example #1:

Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain?

Ernie: Think of it as a little guy in your brain watching the movie projected by your eyes.

Bert: Ok, but what is happening in the little guy in your head’s brain?

Ernie: Well, think of it as a little guy in his brain watching a movie...

Explanation: This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing.  It is fallacious reasoning to accept an explanation that creates this kind of endless loop that lacks any explanatory value.

Example #2:

Dicky: So how do you think life began?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded this planet with life billions of years ago.

Dicky: OK, but how did that alien life form begin?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded that planet with life.

Explanation: This fallacy can be tricky because maybe it is true that aliens are responsible for spreading life, so the answers might be technically right, but the question implied is how life ultimately began, which this form of reasoning will not answer.

 

 

Example #3:

addx: how do you think life began?

shadowhawk: that's easy! God created life

addx: ok, but who created God?

shadowhawk: errmmm..... stop asking stupid questions, off-topic, off-topic!!!

 

Explanation: shadowhawk requires creation to be caused by someones(Gods) will, but that someone(God) requires no explanation to how he was created simply because he says so. So, he solves infinite regress by inventing an entity (God) beyond logic so it can not be questioned to explain itself. 

[addx]

Btw. the human brain/nervous system detects and reacts to change. It detects change in pressure on the skin and reacts to it, but it gets used to constant signals. Constant signals simply fade away. Constant pressure on the skin is felt at first but fades away. It's the same with eyes. The eyball/lens directs light onto photosensitive grid of cells. The human brain and most animals perfoms tiny fast eyeball movement, I think in humans it performs a triangle type motion. This constant eye "twitching" (couple of times per sec) causes the light to hit slightly different cells in the grid. So, any borders/edges that are visible cause a huge change in the cells they "glaze" over during this fast eyeball motion, so edges are in fact seen by the eye-processing circuits, what's between the edges is mostly "filled" in dynamically(which is often the thing that starts working wrong on acid-trips and shrooms) in OCR fashion by preconscious processing. If the eye didn't perform this "microsaccade" motion the picture would simply fade away from consciousness in a way. 

 

You can see this phenomenon for yourself by looking at the sun (sunset or dawn or sunglasses, don't damage your eyes). When you clearly see the edge of the sun-ball you can also see it kinda shimmers around the edge. If you pay attention you'll notice that the shimmering is caused by your eyeball doing this motion, causing a huge contrast/change along the border of the sun-ball that looks like shimmering.

Edited by addx, 24 August 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[DukeNukem]

SH:  >>> Also God is not an infinite regress of cause and effect..

 

He would have to be.  God is EXACTLY the same as turtles.  Gods need a cause much more so than non-complex universes made of very simple rules, features and energies (that we do not fully understand yet, but that's beside the point).  Universes are unplanned, simple (in terms of underlying rules/laws), and emergent, as is life itself.  A god would be complex, and need a far far better explanation than a universe.  

The logic here is impeccable. It's hilarious to think that a god would create a universe 14 billion years ago and wait almost that entire time before creating humans to worship him. (Watch the first few mins from where I time-tagged this video.)
https://www.youtube....A_SU3m5c#t=1805
 

[serp777]

Reply to serp777

 

You have a pantheistic God who is subject to all the limitations of Space/time.  The Christian God is beyond the world and of a different nature than the world.  There never was a time when there was nothing.  God always was.  God is.  Everything else came into being.  It began.  

You cannot receive any information beyond the horizon because it is as far as you can see or from which information can get to you.   We can not see or measure anything beyond the inflationary horizon of the cosmos, therefore it is not evidence for a multi verse.  Inflation in a closed universe fits all the observations, without requiring a multi verse.  Ockham’s razor,

Infinity of regress is an unattainable state rather than a large number.  Things in a cause and effect chain of events cannot be infinite.    David Hilbert (1964): “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to.”

If there were an infinite number of universes and you could actually see them (and you couldn’t) you could never know that because you could not count them in a finite amount of time.  Such an idea is beyond a space time creature with a beginning.  So the idea is not testable and can never be scientific.

And your clam that this has been brought up many times before in this thread is bogus nonsense.  You can easily prove me wrong by citing an example.

"You have a pantheistic God who is subject to all the limitations of Space/time.  The Christian God is beyond the world and of a different nature than the world.  There never was a time when there was nothing.  God always was.  God is.  Everything else came into being.  It began.  "

 

You have a multiverse which is subject to all the limitations of Space/time. The multiverse is beyond the world and of a different nature than the world. There never was a time when there was nothing. The multiverse always is and always was. BOOM, problem solved. This is how an infinite multiverse would work anyways. 

 

"If there were an infinite number of universes and you could actually see them (and you couldn’t) you could never know that because you could not count them in a finite amount of time.  Such an idea is beyond a space time creature with a beginning.  So the idea is not testable and can never be scientific."

 

So because we can't see them means it's definitely wrong. FALSE. A theory about a multiverse might make certain predictions about phenomenon in our universe, which would make it testable and scientific. Also how is God testable and scientific? 

[shifter]

But isn't time a human concept?

Why would God be sitting around for billions of years. Perhaps He is not bound by linear time. According to many thinkers, (I think yourself included) time does not exist.

You can't on one hand use an argument that the concept of time is a human thing and in reality does not exist, then in another argument use time as your arguing point. God by our very definition of the word is supposed to be omnipotent or totally unlike us. So to say He mustn't be real because 'as if He'd wait around for 14 billion years' contradicts your argument about the 'realness' of time.

For all we know since the birth of the universe it's just been a blink of an eye for any being or power outside of it.

Maybe our God has a God, and He has a God

SH: >>> Also God is not an infinite regress of cause and effect..

He would have to be. God is EXACTLY the same as turtles. Gods need a cause much more so than non-complex universes made of very simple rules, features and energies (that we do not fully understand yet, but that's beside the point). Universes are unplanned, simple (in terms of underlying rules/laws), and emergent, as is life itself. A god would be complex, and need a far far better explanation than a universe.

The logic here is impeccable. It's hilarious to think that a god would create a universe 14 billion years ago and wait almost that entire time before creating humans to worship him. (Watch the first few mins from where I time-tagged this video.)
https://www.youtube....A_SU3m5c#t=1805

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Homunculus Fallacy

(also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress)

Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress.

Logical Form:

Phenomenon X needs to be explained.

Reason Y is given.

Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

Example #1:

Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain?

Ernie: Think of it as a little guy in your brain watching the movie projected by your eyes.

Bert: Ok, but what is happening in the little guy in your head’s brain?

Ernie: Well, think of it as a little guy in his brain watching a movie...

Explanation: This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing.  It is fallacious reasoning to accept an explanation that creates this kind of endless loop that lacks any explanatory value.

Example #2:

Dicky: So how do you think life began?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded this planet with life billions of years ago.

Dicky: OK, but how did that alien life form begin?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded that planet with life.

Explanation: This fallacy can be tricky because maybe it is true that aliens are responsible for spreading life, so the answers might be technically right, but the question implied is how life ultimately began, which this form of reasoning will not answer.

 

 

Example #3:

addx: how do you think life began?

shadowhawk: that's easy! God created life

addx: ok, but who created God?

shadowhawk: errmmm..... stop asking stupid questions, off-topic, off-topic!!!

 

Explanation: shadowhawk requires creation to be caused by someones(Gods) will, but that someone(God) requires no explanation to how he was created simply because he says so. So, he solves infinite regress by inventing an entity (God) beyond logic so it can not be questioned to explain itself. 

 

Strawman.  You are putting your own nonsense words into my mouth,  On top of that asking something not caused, "What is your cause?" is a nonsense question.  Answer:God is uncreated.  I don't want that answer.!!!  Your wants are beside the point.

 

[serp777]

 

 

 

Homunculus Fallacy

(also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress)

Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress.

Logical Form:

Phenomenon X needs to be explained.

Reason Y is given.

Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

Example #1:

Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain?

Ernie: Think of it as a little guy in your brain watching the movie projected by your eyes.

Bert: Ok, but what is happening in the little guy in your head’s brain?

Ernie: Well, think of it as a little guy in his brain watching a movie...

Explanation: This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing.  It is fallacious reasoning to accept an explanation that creates this kind of endless loop that lacks any explanatory value.

Example #2:

Dicky: So how do you think life began?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded this planet with life billions of years ago.

Dicky: OK, but how did that alien life form begin?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded that planet with life.

Explanation: This fallacy can be tricky because maybe it is true that aliens are responsible for spreading life, so the answers might be technically right, but the question implied is how life ultimately began, which this form of reasoning will not answer.

 

 

Example #3:

addx: how do you think life began?

shadowhawk: that's easy! God created life

addx: ok, but who created God?

shadowhawk: errmmm..... stop asking stupid questions, off-topic, off-topic!!!

 

Explanation: shadowhawk requires creation to be caused by someones(Gods) will, but that someone(God) requires no explanation to how he was created simply because he says so. So, he solves infinite regress by inventing an entity (God) beyond logic so it can not be questioned to explain itself. 

 

Strawman.  You are putting your own nonsense words into my mouth,  On top of that asking something not caused, "What is your cause?" is a nonsense question.  Answer:God is uncreated.  I don't want that answer.!!!  Your wants are beside the point.

 

The multiverse is uncreated. 

[shadowhawk]

Dukenukem:  SH:  >>> Also God is not an infinite regress of cause and effect..
He would have to be.  God is EXACTLY the same as turtles.  Gods need a cause much more so than non-complex universes made of very simple rules, features and energies (that we do not fully understand yet, but that's beside the point).  Universes are unplanned, simple (in terms of underlying rules/laws), and emergent, as is life itself.  A god would be complex, and need a far far better explanation than a universe.  

The logic here is impeccable. It's hilarious to think that a god would create a universe 14 billion years ago and wait almost that entire time before creating humans to worship him.

In the fall of 2003, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proved infinite regress is impossible according to the popular though conflicting naturalistic models. Cyclical and multiverse models all break down. Infinite regress is proven self-contradictory.  In other words, we observe nature always needs a cause, but infinite regress could not be possible, because if it were true, we would have happened already having an eternity to come into being. Pretty simple. Not so simple for someone lost in their self-exalted self, trying to usurp themselves above God.  So God could not be exactly like turtles because there is an inflationary beginning where no turtles could exist and there was nothing to stand upon.  By the way the Borde-Guth-Vilenkim theorem equally applies to the multiverse which is likewise built on an inflationary model.  Therefore the multiverse if it exists has a beginning.

Not only is the cosmos expanding from a beginning point of inflation but the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it is also running down and available energy is becoming less and less.  At one time all the energy of the Cosmos was available for work.  That was the beginning but we are on the way to having no more energy.  That will be our heat death.  

Our world is cauterized by space/time.  Time started at the big Bang.  God is beyond time, the beginning and the end














http://www.longecity...-23#entry655289
 

[addx]

 

 

 

Homunculus Fallacy

(also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress)

Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress.

Logical Form:

Phenomenon X needs to be explained.

Reason Y is given.

Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.

Example #1:

Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain?

Ernie: Think of it as a little guy in your brain watching the movie projected by your eyes.

Bert: Ok, but what is happening in the little guy in your head’s brain?

Ernie: Well, think of it as a little guy in his brain watching a movie...

Explanation: This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing.  It is fallacious reasoning to accept an explanation that creates this kind of endless loop that lacks any explanatory value.

Example #2:

Dicky: So how do you think life began?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded this planet with life billions of years ago.

Dicky: OK, but how did that alien life form begin?

Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded that planet with life.

Explanation: This fallacy can be tricky because maybe it is true that aliens are responsible for spreading life, so the answers might be technically right, but the question implied is how life ultimately began, which this form of reasoning will not answer.

 

 

Example #3:

addx: how do you think life began?

shadowhawk: that's easy! God created life

addx: ok, but who created God?

shadowhawk: errmmm..... stop asking stupid questions, off-topic, off-topic!!!

 

Explanation: shadowhawk requires creation to be caused by someones(Gods) will, but that someone(God) requires no explanation to how he was created simply because he says so. So, he solves infinite regress by inventing an entity (God) beyond logic so it can not be questioned to explain itself. 

 

Strawman.  You are putting your own nonsense words into my mouth,  On top of that asking something not caused, "What is your cause?" is a nonsense question.  Answer:God is uncreated.  I don't want that answer.!!!  Your wants are beside the point.

 

 

You're an idiot, I'm done.

[shadowhawk]

addx:  You're an idiot, I'm done.

 

Wow what a typical but powerful point.  Why for months do you call me names and argue like this?  Must make some sense to you.

[DukeNukem]

>>> Answer:  God is uncreated.

 

LOL

 

The thing is, you think this is a legit answer.  But it's pure silliness. 

 

Where does it say this in the Bible?

 

But the bottom-line, this "uncreated" claim is just an easy way for you do dodge arguments.  It's your mental safe harbor, a retreat from all the logic, reason and facts you're constantly bombarded with.