Let's pretend...

[Tcg]

.

...that any of the arguments for god are valid. We have to pretend of course because they are horrible. But, if one established that a god created us, them, the universe and whatever else, what reason would there be to conclude that creator is still around?

As I like to present for example, maybe god was given a chemistry set for Christmas one year and he accidentally blew himself up. Then his bits and pieces and those of the chemistry set become the universe. There'd be no more god any more.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #178

Argument for fine tuning is quite another matter. The 'evidence' is there for sure, and is 'mathematical', as you say. but your case is that it is inexplicable unless a cosmic mind did it.

Putting aside for the moment the tactic of putting "evidence" and "mathematical" in quotation marks, I've been trying to put forth counterarguments to strict materialism from various perspectives.

they are NOT evidence for a cosmic mind because you cannot prove that a natural reason for them is impossible

But remember this argument, from an earlier thread?.....

The problem (for you) is that a complex thinking being has a lot of causality to explain. A nothing does not

A nonrational argument can't be countered with an irrational one.

Some questions are harder to answer than others. But although we do not have a full understanding of the origin of the universe, we are not completely in the dark. We know, for example, that space comes from the expansion of the universe. The total energy of the universe may be zero.

This has come up before as well:

viewtopic.php?t=38250&start=120
(posts #129-132)

Cosmologists have hypotheses for the other questions that are consistent with observations (Hawking 2001).

Since you bring up Hawking....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -cosmology

I thought you might complain about the Quotes, but that is done with forethought, because while I agree the Data, their use as Evidence, by you, to assist your apologetic, is Not necessarily agreed.

The rest of it seems to make no argument or apologetic at all. Just what point were you making there?

https://lexmaniac.wordpress.com/2013/02 ... our-point/

[TRANSPONDER]

What is that supposed to mean? That you don't understand what's meant by asking 'what' the point you are making?' Really? What was the argument you were trying to make?

We got off the idea of the topic - showing that a god (cosmic mind) exists now, even if it once existed, and not unsurprisingly got onto an argument for evidence that it exists or ever existed. I won't recap the debate which was about first cause and ID. So what's the argument you are making now?

Looking back, you got onto an irrelevant attack on multiverse theory, dismissed the mathematical applications in physics and then went on to attack what you called 'strict materialism' whatever that is. Since then it's been links to this or that with no argument. It looks to me like you have lost the plot.

[Athetotheist]

What is that supposed to mean? That you don't understand what's meant by asking 'what' the point you are making?' Really? What was the argument you were trying to make?

We got off the idea of the topic - showing that a god (cosmic mind) exists now, even if it once existed, and not unsurprisingly got onto an argument for evidence that it exists or ever existed. I won't recap the debate which was about first cause and ID. So what's the argument you are making now?

Looking back, you got onto an irrelevant attack on multiverse theory, dismissed the mathematical applications in physics and then went on to attack what you called 'strict materialism' whatever that is. Since then it's been links to this or that with no argument. It looks to me like you have lost the plot.

I've disagreed with you and cited sources to illustrate why I've disgreed with you, if that's what you mean by "links to this or that". And I don't think that "strict materialism" is that hard to understand.

[TRANSPONDER]

What is that supposed to mean? That you don't understand what's meant by asking 'what' the point you are making?' Really? What was the argument you were trying to make?

We got off the idea of the topic - showing that a god (cosmic mind) exists now, even if it once existed, and not unsurprisingly got onto an argument for evidence that it exists or ever existed. I won't recap the debate which was about first cause and ID. So what's the argument you are making now?

Looking back, you got onto an irrelevant attack on multiverse theory, dismissed the mathematical applications in physics and then went on to attack what you called 'strict materialism' whatever that is. Since then it's been links to this or that with no argument. It looks to me like you have lost the plot.

I've disagreed with you and cited sources to illustrate why I've disgreed with you, if that's what you mean by "links to this or that". And I don't think that "strict materialism" is that hard to understand.

You have just done denial and evansion tossing links to us and ignoring that you should make your case, not send us off to do your research for you. I won't labour this, but will point up your latest evasive fiddle 'I don't think that "strict materialism" is that hard to understand.' I'm suggesting it's an evasive wriggle as I think you are pretty smart and I don't believe that you fail to get the point. The point being that by using a particular definition such as (rather obviously fsoa) metaphysical materialism, it can be made to look like a 100% Gnostic claim (1) which is logically untenable and is why it often gets wished on materialism by crafty theists trying to make materialism look like a dogs' dinner, and is exactly the ploy they use to try to discredit atheism.

So I'm putting you on the spot chum; if you were not trying to pull that dirty little trick, you had better explain the Other meaning you had for 'strict materialism' and perhaps you can keep your credibility.

What's that, fellas? no, keep that for later.

(1) or metaphysical (philosophical) materialism which says (as I recall) that there is and can be no other mechanism or effect in the universe than naturalist.material ones. Obviously this doesn't obtain in actual practice because we can't logically rule out something else, because we don't any of us really know.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184

You have just done denial and evansion tossing links to us and ignoring that you should make your case, not send us off to do your research for you.

You're not too lazy to read citations, so stop talking like you are.

So I'm putting you on the spot chum; if you were not trying to pull that dirty little trick, you had better explain the Other meaning you had for 'strict materialism' and perhaps you can keep your credibility.

If I've overestimated the strictness of your materialism, by all means say so.

(rather obviously fsoa)

Foreign Service Oral Assessment? Forum Social Ouest Africain? Football Safety Officers Association? I'm sorry, but I'm drawing a blank here.

or metaphysical (philosophical) materialism which says (as I recall) that there is and can be no other mechanism or effect in the universe than naturalist.material ones. Obviously this doesn't obtain in actual practice because we can't logically rule out something else, because we don't any of us really know.

Then why are you getting so bent out of shape at me for trying to explore possibilities?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184

You have just done denial and evansion tossing links to us and ignoring that you should make your case, not send us off to do your research for you.

You're not too lazy to read citations, so stop talking like you are.

So I'm putting you on the spot chum; if you were not trying to pull that dirty little trick, you had better explain the Other meaning you had for 'strict materialism' and perhaps you can keep your credibility.

If I've overestimated the strictness of your materialism, by all means say so.

(rather obviously fsoa)

Foreign Service Oral Assessment? Forum Social Ouest Africain? Football Safety Officers Association? I'm sorry, but I'm drawing a blank here.

or metaphysical (philosophical) materialism which says (as I recall) that there is and can be no other mechanism or effect in the universe than naturalist.material ones. Obviously this doesn't obtain in actual practice because we can't logically rule out something else, because we don't any of us really know.

Then why are you getting so bent out of shape at me for trying to explore possibilities?

'fsoa' (for sake of argument) sorry if the acronym is unfamiliar to you.

You saucebox. It's not for me to do your research for you. I've even made a suggestion as to what you might mean, but it's for you to tell me what you mean by it. I've said what I think you may have in mind, but I've also said that it is a philosophical term and doesn't reflect how I (or any other atheist apologist I have read) use the term in everyday discussion. In fact materialism is as I use it it Not strict, so you appear to trying to force on me a descriptor that I don't use.

Back to you. You are looking very dodgy and you have about one chance more to save your credibility. Either by giving what YOU take 'strict materialism' to mean or by withdrawing the point.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184

You have just done denial and evansion tossing links to us and ignoring that you should make your case, not send us off to do your research for you.

You're not too lazy to read citations, so stop talking like you are.

So I'm putting you on the spot chum; if you were not trying to pull that dirty little trick, you had better explain the Other meaning you had for 'strict materialism' and perhaps you can keep your credibility.

If I've overestimated the strictness of your materialism, by all means say so.

(rather obviously fsoa)

Foreign Service Oral Assessment? Forum Social Ouest Africain? Football Safety Officers Association? I'm sorry, but I'm drawing a blank here.

or metaphysical (philosophical) materialism which says (as I recall) that there is and can be no other mechanism or effect in the universe than naturalist.material ones. Obviously this doesn't obtain in actual practice because we can't logically rule out something else, because we don't any of us really know.

Then why are you getting so bent out of shape at me for trying to explore possibilities?

'fsoa' (for sake of argument) sorry if the acronym is unfamiliar to you.

You saucebox. It's not for me to do your research for you. I've even made a suggestion as to what you might mean, but it's for you to tell me what you mean by it. I've said what I think you may have in mind, but I've also said that it is a philosophical term and doesn't reflect how I (or any other atheist apologist I have read) use the term in everyday discussion. In fact materialism is as I use it it Not strict, so you appear to trying to force on me a descriptor that I don't use.

Back to you. You are looking very dodgy and you have about one chance more to save your credibility. Either by giving what YOU take 'strict materialism' to mean or by withdrawing the point.

I take the words "strict materialism" to mean just what they seem to mean. What I said was,

I've been trying to put forth counterarguments to strict materialism from various perspectives.

If those counterarguments don't apply to your position, fine and dandy. I didn't say that they did; if you assumed such, I hope this clarifies.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #184

You have just done denial and evansion tossing links to us and ignoring that you should make your case, not send us off to do your research for you.

You're not too lazy to read citations, so stop talking like you are.

So I'm putting you on the spot chum; if you were not trying to pull that dirty little trick, you had better explain the Other meaning you had for 'strict materialism' and perhaps you can keep your credibility.

If I've overestimated the strictness of your materialism, by all means say so.

(rather obviously fsoa)

Foreign Service Oral Assessment? Forum Social Ouest Africain? Football Safety Officers Association? I'm sorry, but I'm drawing a blank here.

or metaphysical (philosophical) materialism which says (as I recall) that there is and can be no other mechanism or effect in the universe than naturalist.material ones. Obviously this doesn't obtain in actual practice because we can't logically rule out something else, because we don't any of us really know.

Then why are you getting so bent out of shape at me for trying to explore possibilities?

'fsoa' (for sake of argument) sorry if the acronym is unfamiliar to you.

You saucebox. It's not for me to do your research for you. I've even made a suggestion as to what you might mean, but it's for you to tell me what you mean by it. I've said what I think you may have in mind, but I've also said that it is a philosophical term and doesn't reflect how I (or any other atheist apologist I have read) use the term in everyday discussion. In fact materialism is as I use it it Not strict, so you appear to trying to force on me a descriptor that I don't use.

Back to you. You are looking very dodgy and you have about one chance more to save your credibility. Either by giving what YOU take 'strict materialism' to mean or by withdrawing the point.

I take the words "strict materialism" to mean just what they seem to mean. What I said was,

I've been trying to put forth counterarguments to strict materialism from various perspectives.

If those counterarguments don't apply to your position, fine and dandy. I didn't say that they did; if you assumed such, I hope this clarifies.

Oh it clarifies, chum. It clarifies that you were trying to force an untenable claim (metaphysical materialism) on atheism in order to score an easy polemical point by trickery. I've seen that one before and a lot like it. And it also shows that you have been caught as red handed as a parson in a stripclub and are being evasive about it. Clarifies a lot about the methods, integrity and respect of Theist apologists for their opponents, their themselves and ultimately their religion, or at least beliefs.

cue; the Flounce, possibly.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #188

Oh it clarifies, chum. It clarifies that you were trying to force an untenable claim (metaphysical materialism) on atheism in order to score an easy polemical point by trickery. I've seen that one before and a lot like it. And it also shows that you have been caught as red handed as a parson in a stripclub and are being evasive about it. Clarifies a lot about the methods, integrity and respect of Theist apologists for their opponents, their themselves and ultimately their religion, or at least beliefs.

cue; the Flounce, possibly.

If you want to view a flounce, I suggest that you look in the mirror. You float the logically tenuous notion of "a nothing" being a better candidate for the source of the universe than an unfathomable creative principle and, when confronted with the weaknesses of that position, react with hyperdefensive contempt toward any proposed alternative----not to mention accusing the proposer of underhandedness.

I submit that that's a big part of the image problem you atheists have. You say you want others to understand how "friendly" you are, but people notice when you meet disagreement with hostility. If others assume that your position is more extreme than it is, maybe it has something to do with the combative posture you take seemingly out of habit. Going around with a big self-righteous chip on your shoulder, ready to unload on others with a quick-draw insult or accusation at the drop of a hat, doesn't come off as friendly (the whole "New Atheist" movement was a prime example, a running diatribe of abrasive derision masquerading as intellectualism). It's more pejorative than persuasive.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #188

Oh it clarifies, chum. It clarifies that you were trying to force an untenable claim (metaphysical materialism) on atheism in order to score an easy polemical point by trickery. I've seen that one before and a lot like it. And it also shows that you have been caught as red handed as a parson in a stripclub and are being evasive about it. Clarifies a lot about the methods, integrity and respect of Theist apologists for their opponents, their themselves and ultimately their religion, or at least beliefs.

cue; the Flounce, possibly.

If you want to view a flounce, I suggest that you look in the mirror. You float the logically tenuous notion of "a nothing" being a better candidate for the source of the universe than an unfathomable creative principle and, when confronted with the weaknesses of that position, react with hyperdefensive contempt toward any proposed alternative----not to mention accusing the proposer of underhandedness.

I submit that that's a big part of the image problem you atheists have. You say you want others to understand how "friendly" you are, but people notice when you meet disagreement with hostility. If others assume that your position is more extreme than it is, maybe it has something to do with the combative posture you take seemingly out of habit. Going around with a big self-righteous chip on your shoulder, ready to unload on others with a quick-draw insult or accusation at the drop of a hat, doesn't come off as friendly (the whole "New Atheist" movement was a prime example, a running diatribe of abrasive derision masquerading as intellectualism). It's more pejorative than persuasive.

Lovely job. Can't beat a theist for miff when the truth gets up their nose. You give yourself away by 'the same to you with brass knobs on' and evading the point which was...oh yes, being evasive in that point about what you meant by strict materialism, refusing to confirm or deny what I thought you might mean (which would make you look crafty and dishonest) Or to say what you did mean.

Now, on top of that evasion, you try to change the subject with a clumsily telegraphed switch to cosmic origins. Hoo boy. On my former board we called that a crash and burn.