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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #200

Now this was an extensive response because your case finally crashed, burned, crumpled and sank. Though you may deny it and keep trying, Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, your case died right here.

This was an extensive response? Nearly every response of yours is extensive and they seldom seem to go beyond repetition of your assumptions. It's like you're responding with, "You'rewrongyou'rewrongyou'rewrongyou'rewrongyou'rewrong......", as if trying to bury points and questions under an avalanche of condescending dismissal, and you keep claiming victory as if everyone is intellectually obligated to hand you the trophy just because you say it's yours.

"Stuff appears," you say and no one is supposed to wonder why. "Stuff doesn't need creating", you declare, holding up Krauss and Hawking as authorities (there aren't supposed to be any "authority" figures in science) and everyone is supposed to shrug and say, "Well, by huckleberry, that's good enough for me!" You say you don't care but, honestly, I get the impression that it bothers you when a bystander questions what you don't want questioned. Is that why you're so eager to declare yourself the winner? I'm questioning the Material Holy of Holies, so you want me to go away?

It isn't my fault that a void of Nothing being unstable with nothing to make it that way is logically untenable; that's the way logic works. And you can ask, "If a transcendent principle can exist without being created, why can't Stuff do the same?", but a viable response would be that a transcendent principle wouldn't have to be presumed physical, whereas Stuff is physical. And the more "potential" you give to Stuff to straddle the line between the material and the immaterial, the more you exempt the quantum level from being logical, the more like a transcendent principle you make them.

Maybe that's what bothers you.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #201]

This is not going to be extensive. Your post was abusive rubbish. You sneer at me, accusing me of repetition, when I am only responding to your repetitive dnial, you sneer at Physicists (after you were to one to appeal to Krauss as saying God was Plausible, which he did not), and then reiterate your appeal to incredulity and denial.

You have to do better than that to merit any kind of response, let alone an extensive one.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #201]

This is not going to be extensive. Your post was abusive rubbish. You sneer at me, accusing me of repetition, when I am only responding to your repetitive dnial, you sneer at Physicists (after you were to one to appeal to Krauss as saying God was Plausible, which he did not), and then reiterate your appeal to incredulity and denial.

You have to do better than that to merit any kind of response, let alone an extensive one.

"sortagod"

"word - juggling"

"denialist"

.....and I'm the one sneering?


As for sneering at physicists, if the Krauss quote is merely a product of urban legend then the thing to do is provide corroboration of its falsehood. Short of that, simply insisting that he didn't say it doesn't carry much weight.


If your final answer is "we don't know" and if physicists don't give us answers which can't be questioned, then I owe no apology for questioning their answers and I believe my questions to be perfectly legitimate.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #201]

This is not going to be extensive. Your post was abusive rubbish. You sneer at me, accusing me of repetition, when I am only responding to your repetitive dnial, you sneer at Physicists (after you were to one to appeal to Krauss as saying God was Plausible, which he did not), and then reiterate your appeal to incredulity and denial.

You have to do better than that to merit any kind of response, let alone an extensive one.

"sortagod"

"word - juggling"

"denialist"

.....and I'm the one sneering?


As for sneering at physicists, if the Krauss quote is merely a product of urban legend then the thing to do is provide corroboration of its falsehood. Short of that, simply insisting that he didn't say it doesn't carry much weight.


If your final answer is "we don't know" and if physicists don't give us answers which can't be questioned, then I owe no apology for questioning their answers and I believe my questions to be perfectly legitimate.

This really deserves no answer, but I wil give one. Yes, we actually don't know, and yes questions can be asked.