How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #29

You are (like every darn theist I have ever debated) ignoring the materialist default, which is 'there is no good evidence of a god in the working of anything that we know about'.

I didn't ignore the materialist default. I pointed out that there isn't a materialist fault since nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence, as it would make the argument circular.

That isn't the argument. It is one of those slogans that I mentioned but have no relation to conditions or parameters that are not known. It doesn't in the slightest affect the workings of things without a god being involved. Thus the origins of the material whatever they are - have nothing to support a god claim though appeal to cosmic origins. The default of a supposed expected explanation would be 'natural, not through a cosmic intelligence.

Transponder, you're not getting the argument!

1. Material exists
2. "nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence"
3. Therefore, God.

That's rock solid. Who could possibly argue against that!

You forgot the smiley. I'm assuming you don't mean it seriously as of course the first two points are valid one to consider, but the last is so obviously not that you were surely kidding.

This is becoming rather common: Theists running from hard questions. They only like the ones they read in Josh McDowell screeds.

I often see the same old arguments lifted from the old 'fifty atheists-stumpers' books. It was especially fun (on my other piano) when I debated the Flood and Ark and I'd see the stuff from Woodmorappe or others, like how many species you could get in a line of cattle trucks. Discussion of how many species you'd loose after a year on the Ark, or of feeding and tending them, plus of course the hints that cattle, sheep, ravens doves indicated that the 'kinds' were more like present species than hypothetical Baryma, genetic problems and why the carnivores didn't eat evey other crtitter in the first few weeks and the apologist books were not about answering all the problems but about convincing the believer there were no problems. So they had to make it up themselves and I could see them longing to reach for God's magic wand, which is an unwritten rule - no miracles... just a few small ones.

The thing that annoys me is that many of these Theists will try to argue using "logic and science" to "explain" the Flood, or some other mythological story. They will run you through the gauntlet and when you final prove to them it's not scientifically or logically possible they pull out the Trump Card: "Are you saying the God who could Create the Universe couldn't feed the animals on the Ark?!?! My God can do anything!!!"

So why all the silly pseudo-scientific red herring?

because it is cult-think. Same as I have seen in UFO claims, alternative history and flat earth believers. They are in a love - hate relationship with science. They know the clout and credibility that science has and they long to have scientific credibility but hate and resent that they don't get it, and ,like a spurned lover, they turn hateful and resentful and try to cancel them with dismissal "We don't need no sciencesplainin". Your point is the Unwritten rule of the Ark and Flood. It has to be made to work. If they use the magic wand, the whole Ark and Flood isn't needed. God could just 'Do It'. They know (or feel) that 'God did magic' is a booby trap mine they dare not tread on.

They want to make a scientific or at least technological case for their beliefs. But it is actually faithbased and science can be twisted, quotemined or even lied about if it supports the case. The point was made in a vid. I posted recently that Creationists must know that cats from dogs is not how evolution works, but they keep claiming it is. I don't know why as 'We don't see evolution happen' is at least true, though invalid (as the evidence for it in e.g the cetan sequence is as good as seeing it happen). And for that matter, the recent squirming to get over the sun created after day and night is showing how science - fact has to be fiddled to make the Bible work.

They are reluctant to fall back on dismissive Faith, but that is what is the basis and motivation for all the argument and is why evidence isn't the last word - Faith is.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #35

Transponder, you're not getting the argument!

1. Material exists
2. "nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence"
3. Therefore, God.

boatsnguitars, you're not getting the argument.

1. Material exists
2. Nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence
3. Therefore, "Of course, there is no God" is a fallacy.

Ah I see. Refuted above .

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34

That isn't the argument. It is one of those slogans that I mentioned but have no relation to conditions or parameters that are not known. It doesn't in the slightest affect the workings of things without a god being involved.

It doesn't in the slightest affect the assumption of the workings of things without a god being involved, at least.

Indeed it does not. Things demonstrably work without a god being involved for all anyone can tel.That is why the material default id the go -to potential explanation and goddunnit isn't. So, if that is valid I don't know what your argument has in support other than wanting believe in an intelligent creator. That's up to you, but I can't let you claim there is some evidential, scientific or logical reason to have that as a valid theory.

Cue ID. That is at least part reason why sortagod is a fair gap for a god, though really Abiogenesis and Consciousness aren't anymore.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is becoming rather common: Theists running from hard questions. They only like the ones they read in Josh McDowell screeds.

I often see the same old arguments lifted from the old 'fifty atheists-stumpers' books. It was especially fun (on my other piano) when I debated the Flood and Ark and I'd see the stuff from Woodmorappe or others, like how many species you could get in a line of cattle trucks. Discussion of how many species you'd loose after a year on the Ark, or of feeding and tending them, plus of course the hints that cattle, sheep, ravens doves indicated that the 'kinds' were more like present species than hypothetical Baryma, genetic problems and why the carnivores didn't eat evey other crtitter in the first few weeks and the apologist books were not about answering all the problems but about convincing the believer there were no problems. So they had to make it up themselves and I could see them longing to reach for God's magic wand, which is an unwritten rule - no miracles... just a few small ones.

The thing that annoys me is that many of these Theists will try to argue using "logic and science" to "explain" the Flood, or some other mythological story. They will run you through the gauntlet and when you final prove to them it's not scientifically or logically possible they pull out the Trump Card: "Are you saying the God who could Create the Universe couldn't feed the animals on the Ark?!?! My God can do anything!!!"

So why all the silly pseudo-scientific red herring?

I haven't said any silly, pseudo-scientific thing about Noah's Ark. So whose red herring is that?

It isn't all about you. we do sometimes drift off into another discussion. Nobody was asking you to follow that trail. You are better, I know, than trying to score cheap irrelevant points because you are failing to make the relevant ones, like accusations of fallacies that aren't being made - the one you made being 'Nobody knows,therefore God". Bear in mind the discussions are not to persuade the other person (we old dogs are set in our ways ) but are to provide answers and information to the 30 -40 curious browsers looking in to see how apologetics pan out. I can tall them that: Atheist apologetics prevail so much the Believers have to retreat to a forum of their own and put up a sign telling atheists to stay out.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #35

Transponder, you're not getting the argument!

1. Material exists
2. "nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence"
3. Therefore, God.

boatsnguitars, you're not getting the argument.

1. Material exists
2. Nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence
3. Therefore, "Of course, there is no God" is a fallacy.

1. Material exists
2. No need to account for something that already exists
3. Therefore, "Of course, option there is no God" is not a fallacy.

1. We need to account for something that exists
2. God exists
3. We need to account for God existence

Most Theists: No we don't. Special pleading.
Omnibeing does not need to be accounted for existing but omniverse does.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #35

Transponder, you're not getting the argument!

1. Material exists
2. "nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence"
3. Therefore, God.

boatsnguitars, you're not getting the argument.

1. Material exists
2. Nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence
3. Therefore, "Of course, there is no God" is a fallacy.

1. Material exists
2. No need to account for something that already exists
3. Therefore, "Of course, option there is no God" is not a fallacy.

1. We need to account for something that exists
2. God exists
3. We need to account for God existence

Most Theists: No we don't. Special pleading.
Omnibeing does not need to be accounted for existing but omniverse does.

I think so. It's why kalam fails. Not because the assumption is dressed up as philosophy but is actually no more than commonplace thinking ('nothing comes from nothing") and the supposition there was an origin to the cosmos (which produced our universe). That is at least a valid suggestion, but we really don't know and can make no conclusions yet.

The point was made some time before that Lane- Craig does not appeal to a god. Fine, and never mind that he is being mendacious as of course it is an argument for a god and a particular one, too. In which case Kalam has no place in the debate - until he DOES relate it to a creator mind and a particular one in the Bible, otherwise kalam is irrelevant.

[boatsnguitars]

You forgot the smiley. I'm assuming you don't mean it seriously as of course the first two points are valid one to consider, but the last is so obviously not that you were surely kidding.

Not only forgot the smiley, but the raucous laughter at Theists...

Boil it all down, Theists arguments are from ignorance. Ignorance of the very god they believe in, ignorance of any view outside their religious belief, ignorant of science, and ignorant of logic.

Take WLC, the great Christian Apologist of all time*, he still relies on the belief he formed when he was a teenager: that Jesus "self-authenticated" himself to Willy. That's just another word for Faith, and since Christianity worships Faith, Faith can do no wrong - unless it's used to support anything other than Jesus.

However, WLCs "self-authentication" is simply a repackaging of Calvin's Sensus divinitatis. And let's think about that: Calvin was the guy who decided, "Enough is enough! I don't need to justify my beliefs! God is on my side! I can do what I feel is right, and everyone will just have to shut up and take it."

So he killed Servitus, and years later spawned Sye Ten Bruggencate.

[TRANSPONDER]

You forgot the smiley. I'm assuming you don't mean it seriously as of course the first two points are valid one to consider, but the last is so obviously not that you were surely kidding.

Not only forgot the smiley, but the raucous laughter at Theists...

Boil it all down, Theists arguments are from ignorance. Ignorance of the very god they believe in, ignorance of any view outside their religious belief, ignorant of science, and ignorant of logic.

Take WLC, the great Christian Apologist of all time*, he still relies on the belief he formed when he was a teenager: that Jesus "self-authenticated" himself to Willy. That's just another word for Faith, and since Christianity worships Faith, Faith can do no wrong - unless it's used to support anything other than Jesus.

However, WLCs "self-authentication" is simply a repackaging of Calvin's Sensus divinitatis. And let's think about that: Calvin was the guy who decided, "Enough is enough! I don't need to justify my beliefs! God is on my side! I can do what I feel is right, and everyone will just have to shut up and take it."

So he killed Servitus, and years later spawned Sye Ten Bruggencate.

Lane -Craig's an odd one. He is as Darkmatter2525 put it 'a fiendish disputant'.He dresses it all up in philosophy very well, but when you unpack it, it is childish in the end, and wrong. I remember seeing a vid clip of his excuse for the Flood; something like God can do what he wants and we deserved it. That's the best one of the major Bible apologists can come up with? But I saw long ago that philosophy used by Theist apologists is the way they use science. They fiddle it to try to make a case for God. With Kalam it's hard to avoid the suspicion that WLC is being crafty. He must know that kalam doesn't mention god because like the empty tomb, the hope is that everyone will leap to the required conclusions. In fact banking on the pump -priming 'a priori god.

No; the universe (indeed cosmic matter) may have had a start but nobody knows what or how. 'God' was not mentioned because that would beg the question 'Why a god (name your own)?' but NOT mentioning hit was deliberate, to let people leap to their own conclusions without anyone accusing him of making unvalidated claims.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #42

1. Material exists
2. Nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence
3. Therefore, "Of course, there is no God" is a fallacy.

Ah I see. Refuted above .

There's a difference between denying and refuting.

Things demonstrably work without a god being involved for all anyone can tel.

That's what makes "Of course, there is no God" fallacious. It's the height of arrogance to assume as a matter of course that we can tell everything about the cosmos from our limited perspective. In fact, it involves a second fallacy: "Extraordinary Knowledge".

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #43

It isn't all about you. we do sometimes drift off into another discussion.

Fair enough.

Atheist apologetics prevail so much the Believers have to retreat to a forum of their own and put up a sign telling atheists to stay out.

Then why are so many theists still here?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #44

No need to account for something that already exists

This isn't necessarily the case. Self-evident =/= self-explanatory.

1. We need to account for something that exists
2. God exists
3. We need to account for God existence

It's logically inconsistent to say that "God" [for lack of another term] requires an explanation but that the universe doesn't. Materialism doesn't save us from the "turtles-all-the-way-down" dilemma.

Q: If God created everything, who created God?

A: If physical laws make everything exist, what makes physical laws exist?