Argument from personal incredulity, or Argument for Ignorance, yea, your position is just that simple.
Your argument also include an a case of Special Pleading.
This Universe is so complex it MUST have a creator, yet the complexity of the intelligence required to create the Universe, by your rules, would be so complex as to require a creator itself. As a result, by invoking Magic, you have not explained anything at all.
[i][/i]
AS,
EXACTLY! It is YOU!
An argument from personal incredulity: Asserting because one finds something difficult to understand it can’t be true.
You find it difficult to accept or understand the idea of “god” so you dismiss it.
Then you go on: An argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
You assert that because you see no satisfactory proof of a creator then there must be a “natural” explanation for the universe, but you don’t know what it is!
TF
That's a whole lot more honest then claiming "it was magic", but that kind of goes back to the OP, doesn't it?
Nope, just shows your hard set bias.
btw, what is honest about Larry Krauss and the "Universe from Nothing" business. He is a book seller. Not exactly honest when he says the universe comes from "nothing."
What does he start with and how did the "starter" come to existence?
Isn't he the one who made a name for himself by "proving" that the universe was "curved" and therefore would expand and contract then burst again in a never ending cycle? Now is seems that most astrophysicists see our universe as expanding, linear and there is NOT a never ending cycle.
TF
Actually, he day job is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. If you care to look at his CV, it's only 33 pages long.
As a theoretical physicist, Krauss was actually on of the first to propose the Universe is flat, because that was the only way he could make the math work. Turns out since then this has been experimentally confirmed. As for your underlying assertion that from time to time he is wrong, well of course that is the case, after all, he is human. As for Krauss proving anything, he's a Theoretical Physicist. He has to wait for the experimentalst for proof.
Here' listen to an actual physicist vs a comedian:
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/02/15.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Mojo - you will get nowhere throwing intended insults and trying ad hominem attacks. The weak do that when they have trapped themselves. Much smarter and better folks than you have tried that and failed miserably.
Sometimes the forthrightness of childlike logic - simple but accurate and deadly - exposes phonies. Neither you nor AS has proved anything about your professed status. Apparently both of you fail to see the vacuous - even ludicrous - condition you create when you pretend that simply declaring yourself an atheist proves that you are such a thing and that such a thing exists. Your declaration is worth zip in the realm of evidence, proof and truth.
And, for Antelope Sniper to try to pretend that the possible absence of proof for one thing (God's existence) can in any way prove the existence of another thing (atheism) is really juvenile.
I learned in 3rd grade that when phonies find that their words and manipulations will not work, and when exposed and desperate, they will resort to all that is left - name-calling and vulgarity. How do things look from down there in the pit?
WOW! That is possibly the most inane, rambling, callow and puerile 'argument' I have ever had the misfortune to read (of course, I don't watch FOX or CNN or hang out at Brietbart or Alex Jones so maybe it's more common than I think...) I understand that your desperately trying to concoct a 'intellectual' argument to prove something, but all of your posts (except the first) are just Renfield level ravings...and you're fooling absolutely no one. Can't wait for your next non sequitur, non-parallel 'hypothesis'!
Mojo, if you believe what you wrote there you are a fool and are revealing your pettiness. My post is not an argument - it is a series of observations regarding behavior and weakness - observations buttressed by your posts in this thread. I have no argument with you because you fail to make a cogent point against which one might argue. Further, I have no wish or intent to prove anything to you.
Conversely, repeatedly I have challenged you to prove that you are an atheist and that an atheist exists. You have failed to do so and seem to be flailing around in the face of that challenge. Again - will you post some proof, or will you continue with false bravado, obfuscation and evasion in the form of pointless nastiness.
Argument from personal incredulity, or Argument for Ignorance, yea, your position is just that simple.
Your argument also include an a case of Special Pleading.
This Universe is so complex it MUST have a creator, yet the complexity of the intelligence required to create the Universe, by your rules, would be so complex as to require a creator itself. As a result, by invoking Magic, you have not explained anything at all.
[i][/i]
AS,
EXACTLY! It is YOU!
An argument from personal incredulity: Asserting because one finds something difficult to understand it can’t be true.
You find it difficult to accept or understand the idea of “god” so you dismiss it.
Then you go on: An argument from ignorance: It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
You assert that because you see no satisfactory proof of a creator then there must be a “natural” explanation for the universe, but you don’t know what it is!
TF
That's a whole lot more honest then claiming "it was magic", but that kind of goes back to the OP, doesn't it?
Nope, just shows your hard set bias.
btw, what is honest about Larry Krauss and the "Universe from Nothing" business. He is a book seller. Not exactly honest when he says the universe comes from "nothing."
What does he start with and how did the "starter" come to existence?
Isn't he the one who made a name for himself by "proving" that the universe was "curved" and therefore would expand and contract then burst again in a never ending cycle? Now is seems that most astrophysicists see our universe as expanding, linear and there is NOT a never ending cycle.
TF
Actually, he day job is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University. If you care to look at his CV, it's only 33 pages long.
As a theoretical physicist, Krauss was actually on of the first to propose the Universe is flat, because that was the only way he could make the math work. Turns out since then this has been experimentally confirmed. As for your underlying assertion that from time to time he is wrong, well of course that is the case, after all, he is human. As for Krauss proving anything, he's a Theoretical Physicist. He has to wait for the experimentalst for proof.
Here' listen to an actual physicist vs a comedian:
Yeah right, has a CV with 33 pages, writes a book about the Universe from Nothing but he DOES start with something and then gets exposed as a "bookseller" by a comedian.
Here is a brief cut from a review of his book:
".. But it doesn’t, and doesn’t even really try to, explain why there is something rather than nothing."
You are easily impressed.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
I'm glad I was no where near the explosion that left all the shrapnel in those boys' noses, ears and lips.
That must have been horrible.
I had an old 64 ford truck with an american flag as the sunscreen. Had it through my wife and I dating years. They can have all the bling they want as far as I'm concerned. Wish I still had that truck.
Which is worse to listen to... a christian who is an ex atheist or an atheist who is an ex christian?
Kent
Which one is the arrogant "know it all"?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence". John Adams
"A dishonest man can always be trusted to be dishonest". Captain Jack Sparrow
CLEARLY, not all scientists are honest and CLEARLY not all develop their opinions based on the scientific evidence.
TF
btw, there was a great article written by a Canadian who has since been shouted down about Canadian "climate change." There was a time when the "average" temperature for Canada was taken from over 3000 data points. This was used for years to measure Canada's average temperature. Then the Canadian government decided to reduce the number of weather stations used to compute the average. The new number of stations was reduced to 1100 or so. Wonder of wonders, the new revised reports showed "global warming."
Are scientists honest? I guess that depends on their social and ideological agenda.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
CLEARLY, not all scientists are honest and CLEARLY not all develop their opinions based on the scientific evidence.
TF
btw, there was a great article written by a Canadian who has since been shouted down about Canadian "climate change." There was a time when the "average" temperature for Canada was taken from over 3000 data points. This was used for years to measure Canada's average temperature. Then the Canadian government decided to reduce the number of weather stations used to compute the average. The new number of stations was reduced to 1100 or so. Wonder of wonders, the new revised reports showed "global warming."
Are scientists honest? I guess that depends on their social and ideological agenda.
Scientist are more honest then Theist.
Here's a quote from Craig that tells you everything you need to know about his lack of respect for the truth: The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. — William Lane Craig,
Here's another: Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter. —William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (1994), p. 36 as quoted in Chris Hallquist's review.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
