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?

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #96]

Hello alexxcJRO

You say -"We had Animism: gods as rocks, animals, trees. Then gods of thunder, storms, sun. Now more complex gods but they still lay still in gaps of knowledge: origin of universe, life, consciousness. The same faulty thinking of explaining the gaps with gods."

-------
I am a theist. Ask me any question. If there are gaps in my belief, we will soon find them. What should I attempt to explain. Perhaps I am missing your point completely.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #91

Because the point is about parameter (claims about personal gods) that validate a near positive denial where the case for an intelligent creator (non religious) is not the same thing.

You mean because the existence of a nonspecific intelligent creator is harder to refute?

Knowns do not validate unknowns by analogy.

Analogies can draw meaningful comparisons between knowns and unknowns.

I know enough about Krauss to know him as an atheist. I have only your quote that he thinks a sortagod 'Plausible'. Why should I trust you to speak for him?

As I pointed out earlier, it isn't "my" quote. Go back and look at it again if you need a refresher.

And by the way, your repetitive "sortagod" tool is an Appeal to Ridicule.

In fact, this type of fallacy usually shows desperation in the one committing the fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi ... o-Ridicule

Classic Theist fallacy - appealing to unknowns as evidence for a god. They are evidence of nothing. But the materialist default (e.g physics - which do not need a god to work) gives weight to a 'future' material explanation rather than a god.

Not if the noncausality is predicted in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If it's there, you have to deal with it.

Let's look at Krauss' assertion that quantum laws predict a universe from Absolute Nothing (lest you accuse me of making that up, it's here from 3:50 to 4:20.)
https://subsplash.com/+hm8g/embed/mi/+4 ... _watermark

Physical laws are descriptions of the ways in which physical things behave, which means that they apply only when there are physical things with behavior to be described. Krauss goes beyond this by saying, essentially, that things which do not exist can be made to exist by descriptions of how they would behave if they did exist. If that's the case, then it's the greatest feat of magic ever performed. It's every bit as mystical, ethereal and miraculous as anything ascribed to any god. Krauss likes to say that it all happens with no "supernatural shenanigans" [another appeal to ridicule] but, while quantum laws apparently tell us that something will come from nothing, do quantum laws tell us how something comes from nothing? Do quantum laws themselves make something come from nothing or do they not? If they don't, it would seem that all the shenanigans are supernatural.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #95

Religious people claim to know what they can't know.

Religious people aren't alone in that. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the OP in this thread begins with.....well, I'll let you follow up on that.

Ancient Shamanism claims have been debunked long ago.

How are ancient shamanic beliefs in unseen worlds debunked by theoretical physics which postulates the very same?

Millions of thing invented by scientists though the process of science which work; prove everyday, every hour, every minute, every second how good science is to find out things about our reality.

I don't know of any ancient shaman ever saying that modern appliances couldn't be invented.

Red Herring:
"Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ed-Herring

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #91

Because the point is about parameter (claims about personal gods) that validate a near positive denial where the case for an intelligent creator (non religious) is not the same thing.

You mean because the existence of a nonspecific intelligent creator is harder to refute?

Knowns do not validate unknowns by analogy.

Analogies can draw meaningful comparisons between knowns and unknowns.

I know enough about Krauss to know him as an atheist. I have only your quote that he thinks a sortagod 'Plausible'. Why should I trust you to speak for him?

As I pointed out earlier, it isn't "my" quote. Go back and look at it again if you need a refresher.

And by the way, your repetitive "sortagod" tool is an Appeal to Ridicule.

In fact, this type of fallacy usually shows desperation in the one committing the fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/cgi ... o-Ridicule

Classic Theist fallacy - appealing to unknowns as evidence for a god. They are evidence of nothing. But the materialist default (e.g physics - which do not need a god to work) gives weight to a 'future' material explanation rather than a god.

Not if the noncausality is predicted in the mathematics of quantum mechanics. If it's there, you have to deal with it.

Let's look at Krauss' assertion that quantum laws predict a universe from Absolute Nothing (lest you accuse me of making that up, it's here from 3:50 to 4:20.)
https://subsplash.com/+hm8g/embed/mi/+4 ... _watermark

Physical laws are descriptions of the ways in which physical things behave, which means that they apply only when there are physical things with behavior to be described. Krauss goes beyond this by saying, essentially, that things which do not exist can be made to exist by descriptions of how they would behave if they did exist. If that's the case, then it's the greatest feat of magic ever performed. It's every bit as mystical, ethereal and miraculous as anything ascribed to any god. Krauss likes to say that it all happens with no "supernatural shenanigans" [another appeal to ridicule] but, while quantum laws apparently tell us that something will come from nothing, do quantum laws tell us how something comes from nothing? Do quantum laws themselves make something come from nothing or do they not? If they don't, it would seem that all the shenanigans are supernatural.

Because - as i have explained - a nonspecific creator has nothing for or against - except the materialist default. Religion -specific gods have parameters we can evaluate. Why are you persistently refusing to understand this point? The analogy comparing knowns with unknowns may explain the point being argued but does not validate the unknown or unproven (1).

Regarding Krauss I looked back and I see this "Then why doesn't Krauss consider it implausible?" I didn't see a quote or reference there. And i put in a couple of quotes showing he is an atheist and argues for atheism. By the way 'Sortagod' is shorthand for 'some sort of god' meaning not specific and covering non intelligent creator. You are getting desperate if you are resorting to wagging that about as an argument.

Your quote about Krauss only says we are still struggling to understand cosmic origins. I see nothing to make a particular case for an intelligent creator.

The Colbert report chat was a nice watch. I have heard the argument that a Something is necessary "There has to be something because Nothing is unstable. There is no evidence for a divine creator". Comments?

(1) I'm not sure this is a recognised informal fallacy - I have not seen it argued, as I haven't seen a case for 'You too' as a valid argument where a claim to high moral ground is being made or that slippery slope events do indeed happen. But I'd say they are demonstrably valid points.

[TRANSPONDER]

https://subsplash.com/+hm8g/embed/mi/+4 ... _watermark

It really is worth a watch. It utterly refutes whatever you were trying to argue. In fact I recall in a discussion long ago I was arguing for the logical preference of a natural something from nothing over a 'god' with no origin making everything from nothing. I also referred to the virtual particles experiment which Krauss is talking about and addresses the point Colbert makes - that a nothing than can produce something (virtual particles) is not 'nothing'. It is and quantum means that a nothing (which does not need to be created) can produce virtual particles out of nowhere and no god is needed.

Not only does that means that 'something from nothing' is possible, but it is pretty much required by quantum physics.

[alexxcJRO]

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #96]

Hello alexxcJRO

You say -"We had Animism: gods as rocks, animals, trees. Then gods of thunder, storms, sun. Now more complex gods but they still lay still in gaps of knowledge: origin of universe, life, consciousness. The same faulty thinking of explaining the gaps with gods."

-------
I am a theist. Ask me any question. If there are gaps in my belief, we will soon find them. What should I attempt to explain. Perhaps I am missing your point completely.

Hey Masterblaster!

I was talking in general not necessarily of you.
There are many arguments for God proposed by religious folks: KALAM-Cosmological argument, FINE TUNING-anthropic argument, Argument from consciousness which are basically Arguments from Ignorance and God of the GAPS. Just more complicated versions of: I don't know how nature works therefore rocks, animals, trees gods/I don't know how thunder, storms, sun works therefore gods of thunder, storm and sun.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #107]

Very succinctly explained. The Big Three gaps for God (Cosmic origins, origins of life, origins of consciousness (1) of which Cosmic Origins is the go -to apologetic when all else fails. "Kalam" is just "Who made everything, then" dressed up, but as Bruckner said, "You can paint a sausage red and blue, but it's still a sausage". The trickiness - I was going to say 'perhaps unintended' as a priori godfaith in in all apologetics without them realising it (which is why they don't know all their apologetics efforts are illogical) but the trick is deliberate - no mention of God. At least as I recall from a long past debate. It only argues for a cause for the universe. This fails in a couple of ways. It applies conditions on earth to conditions anywhere else. And we should know by now that 'The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN Imagine'. I know we (or I) argue that natural physics obtains everywhere, but this is only because we know things work without a god, so the burden of proof falls on the ones claiming a sorta -god, never mind a personal god.

Anyway, all we had (if LC's argument held any water) was a Cause. And that cause can as well be natural as intelligently designed. It does not get WLC to a god, only an unknown cause. For some time now the physicists (with me tagging along) have rejected eternal matter or infinite recession as the probable solution (a non created got of some sort being a poor third runner) have been thinging Something from Nothing was the only way of escape from impossibility and as Holmes says 'when the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, however improbable, must be the truth'. Well, mathematically, and with the experiment for virtual particles, Something from Nothing actually looks like the answer, and not just a better bet than 'God' (name your own).

(1) morality now being pretty much dead in the water, though it keeps cropping up.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

There is a good variety of points of view in this disussion. The point about constructing a God on the unknown is worth considering. My God is in what I know.

I am going to sound weird to the quantum /microscopic dispute that rages here but I must state my sincerely held view on this.

The discussion between Athetotheist and TRANSPONDER was predicted and de-marked as folly ,in the insightfulness of the Old Testament stories.

It is intellectual Babeling as mankind invests in his intellect as a means to reach the heavens. It is discord around the same point and the discussion acquires the quantum dynamics, it attempts to discuss. It attempts to make a resolution from a non existent point of apparent contention, that is nothing.

Look at the Ark, because our modern progression as a species is going to require another one, if not then a nuclear shelter , that is as well stocked as a Salt Lake City Silo.

What I really want you all to consider here is The Garden of Eden. Go back to the narrative and its contained wisdom and advice. It is in the fruits of the Tree of Good and Evil that we will find a proper framework for our discussion. Microscope them!

[boatsnguitars]