Why did you Change your world view?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The original question was “why did you changed your view” and someone (ChristineM) answered, I was a Christian but then I read the bible and noticed that is fool mistakes, contradicts, **** etc. and I became an atheist

I simply pointed that it is fallacious to become an atheist for that reason, because from the fact that the bible is wrong, it doesn’t follow that atheism is true

Still ignoring that thing about how it's a nonsense statement to say "atheism is true/false" I see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course these are “just claims” this is a forum, I am simply making a summary of the arguments, these claims have been revised and analyzed multiple times by multiple scholars.

I am assuming that you are familiar with the literature and that you have a view on this claims, so do you accept these claims as factual (answer yes or no)

As I later in the post added: it doesn't matter, since even if they are all granted, all it gets you to is that people believed it. Which is kind of a given to begin with..............

So while I could say a thing or two about that, I won't because it's irrelevant.
None of this is evidence that a miraculous resurection occured. At best, it is only evidence that people believed it.

I'm sure you are aware that people believe a lot of things....

Ok, so do you have a better naturalistic explanation for those 5 facts ?

As I have explained to you already.... claims fall and stand on their own merrit and not on wheter or not there are "alternative explanations".

Having no alternative explanation, BY NO MEANS adds credibility to your claim.


And ps: an alternative explanation is as easy as "they lied" or "they were mistaken".
Both of which are insanely and absurdly more plausible, as people lie and are mistaken ALL THE TIME, while violations / suspensions of natural law have never been demonstrated AND are actually understood as being impossible.

Common stuff like people being mistaken or dishonest is infinitly more likely and reasonable then "undemonstrable magic happened".

 

[Samael_Khan]

And let's be honest.... the more likely explanation for such an event would simply be a natural phenomenon or technology that we simply have yet to learn about. Or the observation itself was wrong.


For example (I hope I remember it correctly....):
A few years ago, there was some turmoil in physics circles. A physcist team shot a beam of neutrino's from switzerland to a detector in italy. The resulting data upon detecting their arrival in itally, showed that the neutrino's traveled faster then the speed of light. A violation of everything we know about physics. Impossible to occur according to Einstein's relativity.

So, was it a "miracle"?

Nope. The observation was wrong. The calculation, ironically, didn't take relativity into account, haha.

Nobody ever considered that physics was wrong. Let alone considered that a "miracle" had just occured (since this observation would have been a violation of natural law as we understand it).


How can you even demonstrate that a miracle occured?
It necessarily is done on faith alone.

And if the excuse given is "we have no other explanation", then it's just an argument from ignorance.

The above would be the most likely scenarios. We cannot demonstrate that a miracle occurred because to do that we would need to know everything about the universe.

Which is why I place things i dont know in the "i dont know" category.

I recall using the argument from ignorance fallacy myself when i was a believer. The "I dont know" category equalled miracle back then and I didnt even realise it.

 

[leroy]

I see you are still on that fallacy.
Let's move it around then.

Let's take the origins of the universe.
It's the result of extra-dimensional pixies farting. A space-time bubble is thus an inter-dimensional pixie fart.

So, what "positive reason" do you have to reject that one?

Well for example, Pixies (if real) and Farts are made out of matter, the cause of the universe, by necessity had to be inmaterial

Another reason Parsimony:, there is nothing in the universe that would be better explained with pixies, than without them

I already explained to you that my point isn't concerned with potential alternative explanations and only concerned with the actual merrits of the claims itself.

Ok, but you do have to explain why the arguments that have been presented don’t have a merit

Blatant shift of the burden of proof.

I see, its easy to be an atheist,

First you state that God is not an option without any justification

Then you proclaim that atheism wins

You need reasons / justification to suggest something as an option first.

Aja, but any argument or justification for “God” would be rejected because you decided a priory God is not an option.

And FYI: THAT is the reason why you would reject universe farting pixies. Because there is no reason to consider them in the first place!

But if you ever provide an argument for pixies I would be obligated to explain why I reject that argument,

Or could I just reject the argument a priory just because it is not an option?

You whole Pixies dance is based on the assumption that there are no arguments for God, but the problems is that arguments have been provided, and you can’t simply reject them without any justification.

Arguments for god have been provided; it is your turn to explain why are the arguments, wrong, fallacious, incoherent etc.

Also, it's kind of hard to have evidence against an unfalsifiable claim. It's also kind of hard to have evidence FOR an unfalsifiable claim

.

Granted, if someone presents you an unfalsifiable argument for God, you can reject that argument for that reason.

It uses unsupported premises.
It has loads of problems actually, depending on how you word it.

ok

this is how I woudl word it

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The justification of each premise is summarized in this article

The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith

So palease spot a single fallacy, invalid assmtion or mistake, in the argument.

 

[leroy]

And ps: an alternative explanation is as easy as "they lied" or "they were mistaken".
Both of which are insanely and absurdly more plausible, as people lie and are mistaken ALL THE TIME, while violations / suspensions of natural law have never been demonstrated AND are actually understood as being impossible.

Common stuff like people being mistaken or dishonest is infinitly more likely and reasonable then "undemonstrable magic happened".

Ok justify the claim, that the lying hypothesis is better than the resurrection hypothesis. It would be nice if you also develop your theory , who lied? The apostles? Paul? James,? The authors of the Gospels? The catholic Church? the Pope?

Depending on you “lie theory” I would present good positive objections against your theory



Evidence for the resurrection

1 A resurrection would explain all those 5 facts in a natural way, better than any other hypothesis.

2 If Jesus rose from the dead it would explain why the early Christian Movement flourished so fast.

3 If the existence of God is possible, then miracles are also possible, given that you haven’t shown that the existence of God is impossible or unlikelly, we can at least adopt “agnosticism” (ie maybe God Exist maybe He doesn’t

So your alternatives are ether to provide a better explanation or provide a justification to reject my argument.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why did you Change your world view?

This forum is full of theists that used to be atheist, atheists that used to be theists, Christians that used to be Jews, Creationists that used to be Evolutionists, etc.

So if you have changed your religious world view I would like to know what was the “thing” that convinced you that you where wrong,

In my particular Case, I used to be a YEC, in my mind the strongest and irrefutable argument for a flood was the fact that there where flood legends with parallels all over the world, to me it was obvious that all these legends had a common source, and this source had to be the actual event (a global flood)

Then I realized that the supposed parallels where vague and that the stories were in no way similar to the story reported in the bible. The exception would be Flood Legends in the middle east, but that can be explain by claiming that both legends where “quoting” from a common legend (not necessarily the event)

Then slowly but surely I began to notice that I was using the same logic that fanatics atheist use to support YEC. Things like “avoid the burden proof at all cost” “reject scientific consensus just because there are a few small holes u}in our knowledge, contradictions, conspiracy theories, raise the bar unrealistically to high when it comes to evidence that contradict my view, etc.

Then I simply decided that this logic was flawed. And had no option but to reject YEC.

My thoughts are that I simply returned to my original view before I was introduced to theism. I discovered there was actually no divinity to speak of much less anything special or unique that would make the religion I was following any more special or different from any other religion. All I discovered through the experience was plenty of embellishments, fabrications , bells and whistles, rose colored glasses and stained glass windows. Outside the attractive veneer of all that, there was just simply was no notable substance and I simply stopped pretending and set it all down for something more direct and straightforward which was simply to go through life without any gods.

 

[leroy]

It makes assumption that cause precedes effect. There are three arguments against this, first it is unknown if time existed, without time caus and effect are meaningless. Second when this universe formed the laws that govern this universe did not exist so it is unknown if a cause was required. Third QM does not require that cause and effect be in order. So its first premise is made on guesswork.

Second premise, it is unknown if our began to exist or if it has always existed. Another guess

Third premise is invalid because the previous 2 premises are invalid

Fourth premise is a leap of faith based on ignorance, not predefined but used as the argument.

As for your resurrection ideas. I thought we were talking of evidence. Not what it says in the bible because it says so in the bible. I know of one proposed explanation that is accepted by some scholars and does not involve magic

No the argument doesn’t presupposes that the cause precedes the effect. For all we know that cause and the effect could be simultaneous or occur in any order the KCA is not committed to the view that the cause precedes the effect

Yes I also know of many naturalistic hypothesis (some of the supported by scholars-) but in my opinion none of them is better than the resurrection.

Feel free to share any of those naturalistic hypothesis, and explain why is it better than the resurrection hypothesis

 

[Milton Platt]

Why did you Change your world view?

This forum is full of theists that used to be atheist, atheists that used to be theists, Christians that used to be Jews, Creationists that used to be Evolutionists, etc.

So if you have changed your religious world view I would like to know what was the “thing” that convinced you that you where wrong,

In my particular Case, I used to be a YEC, in my mind the strongest and irrefutable argument for a flood was the fact that there where flood legends with parallels all over the world, to me it was obvious that all these legends had a common source, and this source had to be the actual event (a global flood)

Then I realized that the supposed parallels where vague and that the stories were in no way similar to the story reported in the bible. The exception would be Flood Legends in the middle east, but that can be explain by claiming that both legends where “quoting” from a common legend (not necessarily the event)

Then slowly but surely I began to notice that I was using the same logic that fanatics atheist use to support YEC. Things like “avoid the burden proof at all cost” “reject scientific consensus just because there are a few small holes u}in our knowledge, contradictions, conspiracy theories, raise the bar unrealistically to high when it comes to evidence that contradict my view, etc.

Then I simply decided that this logic was flawed. And had no option but to reject YEC.

The buzzword "world view" is confusing to me. Doesn't everyone's world view change a bit daily based upon new information and the discarding of inaccurate information?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Why did you Change your world view?

This forum is full of theists that used to be atheist, atheists that used to be theists, Christians that used to be Jews, Creationists that used to be Evolutionists, etc.

So if you have changed your religious world view I would like to know what was the “thing” that convinced you that you where wrong,

In my particular Case, I used to be a YEC, in my mind the strongest and irrefutable argument for a flood was the fact that there where flood legends with parallels all over the world, to me it was obvious that all these legends had a common source, and this source had to be the actual event (a global flood)

Then I realized that the supposed parallels where vague and that the stories were in no way similar to the story reported in the bible. The exception would be Flood Legends in the middle east, but that can be explain by claiming that both legends where “quoting” from a common legend (not necessarily the event)

Then slowly but surely I began to notice that I was using the same logic that fanatics atheist use to support YEC. Things like “avoid the burden proof at all cost” “reject scientific consensus just because there are a few small holes u}in our knowledge, contradictions, conspiracy theories, raise the bar unrealistically to high when it comes to evidence that contradict my view, etc.

Then I simply decided that this logic was flawed. And had no option but to reject YEC.

What I started to believe:

Someone has to allow the Universe to exist. That's God. Searching into the past, there has to have been a starter. That's God and since they are both all-powerful they are one God. Someone has to be a supreme being in the Universe, local or not. That's God and since they are all all-powerful they are one God. Something has exist in letting something gain understanding of what is going on. That's God and since they are all all-powerful they are one God.

Why I changed:

I was Raelian for 10 years. Raelism is a religion of UFOs, sciences, philosophies and all religions. Raelians also include Joseph Smith as a prophet.

I thought the Raelians had a monopoly on everything. Then my sister tried to get me to be sexually pure. I learned that the reason the holy ghost cared about me so much as a Raelian was that I thought the world was near ending, so I had a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

The LDS Church has the most writing, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the best promised afterlife. Raelians only let you get cloned in heaven, and then you just get cheap things like sex robots and food robots and can relax. Latter-day Saints let you go there and participate with God.

I like Judaism-Christianity-Islam better than Hindu-Buddhism and the LDS Church seems to be the true religion about Judaism and Christianity. I guess you could call me a dabbler with Islam.

 

[ChristineM]

No the argument doesn’t presupposes that the cause precedes the effect. For all we know that cause and the effect could be simultaneous or occur in any order the KCA is not committed to the view that the cause precedes the effect

Yes I also know of many naturalistic hypothesis (some of the supported by scholars-) but in my opinion none of them is better than the resurrection.

Feel free to share any of those naturalistic hypothesis, and explain why is it better than the resurrection hypothesis

Yes it does,read it

Your opinion is not evidence

With just as much evidence as the resurrection story, far more logical and has the advantage of corresponding with reality

First, Rome was not in the habit of letting people down from crucifixion. The dead bodies were left in place as a reminder of roman power.

So consider, either the guard was bribed to let JC down from the cross before he died or the guard defied protocol and released him

Following a few days recovery he was seen about the town. Only to succumb to blood poisoning from the rusty nails used to pin him to the cross.

Now your belief is based on unevidenced biblical text compiled several hundred years after his death. Mine is also based on no evidence but actually conforms to reality and roman law.

 

[leroy]

You are confusing me with someone else. I didn't say that.

I said what you quoted: it's an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

"I don't understand why the values are what they are, therefor god".

That's the crux of the FT "argument".

As I said before it is very easy to be an atheist, all you have to say "it's an argument from ignorance" you can dismiss any argument by simply using that card.

Imagine a situation where you present nested hierarchies as evidence common ancestry..... And a YEC answers " ohhhh that's am argument from ignorance, just because we don't know why we see a NH pattern you can't simply invoke your" "common ancestry" of the gaps theory

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well for example, Pixies (if real) and Farts are made out of matter, the cause of the universe, by necessity had to be inmaterial

Ow? So when did you examine the fart of an extra-dimensional pixie so that you could determine that its far was made of matter?

Another reason Parsimony:, there is nothing in the universe that would be better explained with pixies, than without them

GREAT!

Now replace "pixies" with "god(s)".

There you go. Congratulations. You nailed it.

Ok, but you do have to explain why the arguments that have been presented don’t have a merit

No. It's upto the one making the argument to demonstrate the merrit.
Only when you do that, can I address that and show why I disagree.

But you haven't done that.
What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

But just to humour you... The god claim has zero explanatory power, makes zero testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, is unverifiable, is not independently testable.

ie: no merrit.

Unfalsifiable ideas have no merrit by definition.

First you state that God is not an option without any justification

I never once said this.
I said that isn't an option BY DEFAULT.

I said that if you wish to put it on the table as an option, you have to actually bring something to show it is a valid option to begin with.

I'm sure you agree that whatever you can imagine, isn't an actual option by default simply by virtue of being able to imagine it, right?

I didn't rule anything out as an option.
I just said that you failed to demonstrate that it IS an option.

Your god is just as much an option as extra-dimensional pixies are.

To not accept something as a valid option, is not the same as ruling it out.
You seem to be making this "black and white" mistake quite regurarly.

Like in that other thread concerning kca nonsense... You assume there too, that not accepting the claim "something can't come from nothing" as a true-ism, somehow means or implies that the claim "something CAN come from nothing" would be accepted as true.

This is just not the case.

Then you proclaim that atheism wins

This is not about "winning" or "losing". It's about what is most reasonable and rationally justified.

Aja, but any argument or justification for “God” would be rejected because you decided a priory God is not an option.

No. I reject arguments/justifications for "god" (like kca, ft etc) because they are cesspools of unsupported premises, assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance / incredulity, themselves dependen on statements of faith, etc.

Bring me a valid argument backed by evidence in an independently verifiable manner, and I'll happily accept it.

But if you ever provide an argument for pixies I would be obligated to explain why I reject that argument,

Which I did. I told you why I reject arguments like KCA and FT and the other apologetic nonsense.

Or could I just reject the argument a priory just because it is not an option?

If the arguments are invalid / unsupported, and the pixies are unfalsifiable, then you can reject both the arguments as well as the pixies claim as invalid options, yes.

Which is what you in fact do when it comes to pixies, leprechauns and just about every other unfalsifiable entity.

You whole Pixies dance is based on the assumption that there are no arguments for God,

No. It's based on the FACT that both gods and pixies are unfalsifiable entities with zero explanatory power, zero testable predictions and zero independent verifiability.

but the problems is that arguments have been provided

And subsequently dismantled by exposing the unsupported premises, the assumed conclusions, the arguments from ignorance / incredulity, etc.

, and you can’t simply reject them without any justification.

Ignoring that I did exactly that, won't make it go away.

Arguments for god have been provided; it is your turn to explain why are the arguments, wrong, fallacious, incoherent etc.

Already did.

Granted, if someone presents you an unfalsifiable argument for God, you can reject that argument for that reason.

The existance of god itself is an unfalsifiable claim.
And no "argument" is going to change that. It's also the reason why any apologetic argument is going to fall short of actually demonstrating anything at all.... because the unfalsifiable can't be falsified OR demonstrated. That's kind of the thing with unfalsifiability... it's completely useless and without merrit.

Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok justify the claim, that the lying hypothesis is better than the resurrection hypothesis

Humans lie or are mistaken all the time.
Magic never happens.

Done.

It would be nice if you also develop your theory , who lied? The apostles? Paul? James,? The authors of the Gospels? The catholic Church? the Pope?

Depending on you “lie theory” I would present good positive objections against your theory

Did you conveniently leave out the "or were mistaken" part on purpose?

You also seem to be ignoring that I also said that EVEN if I would grant you all 5, then still it wouldn't take you anywhere closer to "magic happened!". Instead, all you end up with is evidence that people BELIEVED that magic happened.

HUGE difference.

Evidence for the resurrection

correction: evidence that people believed a resurrection happened.

1 A resurrection would explain all those 5 facts in a natural way, better than any other hypothesis.

A resurrection is not "natural".

Occam's razor comes to mind.

The explanation that these people were lying OR MISTAKEN, requires far less assumptions.

YOUR "explanation" requires the assumption that magic happens.
MY "explanation" requires the assumption that people can lie or BE MISTAKEN.


How on earth can you possibly say that "magic happened" is more likely / probable then "people were mistaken"??????

For crying out loud...................

2 If Jesus rose from the dead it would explain why the early Christian Movement flourished so fast.

People living in misery and oppression during a time period where superstition found its way into every corner of life believing the story that god is on their side, explains that too and does not require the assumption of "magic happened".

3 If the existence of God is possible, then miracles are also possible

Pretty big "if". Good luck demonstrating that a god existing is possible.

, given that you haven’t shown that the existence of God is impossible

Kind of hard to do when the god concept is unfalsifiable.......

or unlikelly

Zero evidence, zero precedents. that makes it unlikely.

, we can at least adopt “agnosticism” (ie maybe God Exist maybe He doesn’t

Agnosticism as it pertains to god claims, means that it is impossible to have knowledge of god. Which sounds about right, considering the god concept you are invoking is unfalsifiable. yes, it is impossible to have knowledge of the unfalsifiable. That goes for me AND for you.

So we are both agnostic concerning the god claim. Everybody is. Even those that claim they aren't. They are just wrong. You can't know anything about the unfalsifiable BY DEFENITION.

Which is why, again, unfalsifiable claims are utterly useless and infinite in number.

So your alternatives are ether to provide a better explanation or provide a justification to reject my argument.

No. As I told you ad nauseum: claims fall and stand on their own merrits - not on the potential existance of "alternative" explanations.

I don't require an "alternative" explanation to recognise a claim as unsupported, unfalsifiable, undemonstrable, unverifiable.

The lack of demonstration, evidence, etc is more then enough to not accept a claim - no matter if there are "alternative" explanations or not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No the argument doesn’t presupposes that the cause precedes the effect.

It does, because P1 invokes causality as we observe it in the universe.
Which is an inherently temporal phenomenon (which only really applies in classical physics and becomes very fishy at the quantum level - so it's not even a general rule / law like P1 likes to pretend that it is).

KCA thus tries to invoke phenomon of the physics of the universe and then pretends as if these phenomenon still apply after remove the universe (including the physics of the universe).

For all we know that cause and the effect could be simultaneous

No such thing has been observed, ever.
So this too is an unsupported claim.

or occur in any order the KCA is not committed to the view that the cause precedes the effect

It is, due to the way it invokes it in p1.

Yes I also know of many naturalistic hypothesis (some of the supported by scholars-) but in my opinion none of them is better than the resurrection.

Feel free to share any of those naturalistic hypothesis, and explain why is it better than the resurrection hypothesis

They were mistaken.

Humans make mistakes all the time. It is extremely common.

Right out the gates, common human behaviour is far more likely then "magic occured".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes it does,read it

Your opinion is not evidence

With just as much evidence as the resurrection story, far more logical and has the advantage of corresponding with reality

First, Rome was not in the habit of letting people down from crucifixion. The dead bodies were left in place as a reminder of roman power.

So consider, either the guard was bribed to let JC down from the cross before he died or the guard defied protocol and released him

Following a few days recovery he was seen about the town. Only to succumb to blood poisoning from the rusty nails used to pin him to the cross.

Now your belief is based on unevidenced biblical text compiled several hundred years after his death. Mine is also based on no evidence but actually conforms to reality and roman law.

I'm starting to think that having this conversation is of little use....


He's saying that "magic occured" is a better explanation then something mundane as "the people who believed it, were mistaken".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As I said before it is very easy to be an atheist, all you have to say "it's an argument from ignorance" you can dismiss any argument by simply using that card.

"It is very easy to be a theist, all you have to do is ignore the logical fallacies in apologetics and you can then say that it proves god"

I can play that silly game to.
I told you exactly how the FT argument is an argument from ignorance / incredulity.
I didn't just claim it was fallacious and left it at that.

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Imagine a situation where you present nested hierarchies as evidence common ancestry..... And a YEC answers " ohhhh that's am argument from ignorance, just because we don't know why we see a NH pattern you can't simply invoke your" "common ancestry" of the gaps theory

The difference is that evolution theory is NOT an unfalsifiable model and that it makes testable predictions. One such prediction is that life should be structured in a nested hierarchy.

And the theory explains in insane detail exactly HOW the nested hierarchies are produced, and even that part of it is testable and independently verifiable.

You have nothing even remotely comparable in the FT "argument". There is no "god model" that predicts or explains what the values of constants etc in the universe should be whatsoever.

All you have there, is "we don't know how this occurs - must be god that dun it"

 

[ChristineM]

I'm starting to think that having this conversation is of little use....


He's saying that "magic occured" is a better explanation then something mundane as "the people who believed it, were mistaken".

Much agreement here, same as before and before but on the plus side its better thsn lockdown which is still an ever present threat of cabin fever.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What about this one to debunk the Multiverse believers? It shows via the scientific method that Shrodinger's cat cannot exist in the natural world. Only an alive or dead cat. Never both.

The multiverse hypothesis has not been debunked. If you think it has, present your argument. Few of us want to debate a video, nor even trust that it is good enough to justify spending the time watching it, especially since it's probably religious apologetics, which is notoriously dishonest.

I would say that the idea of God is useful to give people hope in a useless situation, thus courage to overcome them, as has been experienced by many people.

Maybe I was unclear. What I mean by useful (regarding an idea) is its ability to help us anticipate outcomes. Yes, an idea can also have a comforting placebo affect, but that's not a reason to believe that gods exist.

saying that "it is psychology" would be falling into the same line of reasoning as "Godidit" unless it can be demonstrated

OK, but what I said is that is that human beings have a proclivity for imputing agency in nature, so the idea of gods is pretty much inevitable and expected.

Why are the arguments fallacious? Pick your favorite form the list that I provided and spot the fallacy or the mistake (be specific, explain exactly what the mistake is)

This is covered elsewhere. I have recently discussed it here

The evidence for the resurrection that theist usually provide
1 Jesus Died on the Cross
2 Jesus was buried
3 the tomb was found empty
4 The disciples and many others had experiences that they interpreted as having seen iand interacting with the risen Jesus
5 They were willing to fight and die for the believe in the resurrection

So what’s wrong with this? Would you say that these are not historical facts that probably happened, or would you say that there is a better explanation than the resurrection for these facts? (are to provide such explanation and explain why is it a better explanation?)

That's not compelling evidence of a god, even if all of it actually happened, as another poster has indicated.

I have more doubt that Jesus was a historical figure that actually ever lived than that he rose from the dead.

What tomb? Where was it? Who examined it? What's the evidence that that happened other than the unevidenced claim? The Bible is not evidence of anything in it, just evidence that it was written. Some thinks in the Bible actually happened, but you can't know that from the Bible itself. Confirmation must come from elsewhere

Do you think that because people would die for something means that they didn't die from a misimpression? Was David Koresh a god or prophet or whatever his gullible followers said he was? They died for him. It means nothing other than that people are capable of making such decisions based on certitude of belief even when it is faith-based.

we have good positive reasons to reject Pixies as an explanation for gravity

I don't think that you can exclude pixies underlying gravity. Sure, you have no reason to believe that pixies are involved, but you no better reason to believe that a god is..

unless you provide good positive to reject God as an explanation for things like the FT [fine tuning] of the universe, you have no justification to put God and pixies in the same category.

Gods and pixies are already in the same category - creatures some claim exist without offering evidence of that existence.

The fine tuning argument for a god has been rebutted, but I'll just say this. If God was forced to build a universe withing narrow limits in its physical parameters, how can we say that He was all-powerful or the author of those requirements rather than that they were something imposed on Him by a higher, prior order.

How could this god be called omnipotent if it could only form the universe one way? If that's the case, this god didn't actually design anything. It followed a set of instructions that restricted it.

The fine tuning argument is addressed by the multiverse hypothesis, in which uncounted editions of every possible unverse are spawned from a single, eternal, unconscious source.

pixies is adhoc, and unparsimonious these are all good reason to reject pixies

How are gods any less ad hoc? Compared to the multiverse hypothesis, which requires no sentient creator to generate universes like ours, gods are unparsimonious. That doesn't rule them out. It just makes them an unnecessary complication that may still actually be the case.

 

[leroy]

Yes it does,read it

Your opinion is not evidence

With just as much evidence as the resurrection story, far more logical and has the advantage of corresponding with reality

First, Rome was not in the habit of letting people down from crucifixion. The dead bodies were left in place as a reminder of roman power.

So consider, either the guard was bribed to let JC down from the cross before he died or the guard defied protocol and released him

Following a few days recovery he was seen about the town. Only to succumb to blood poisoning from the rusty nails used to pin him to the cross.

Now your belief is based on unevidenced biblical text compiled several hundred years after his death. Mine is also based on no evidence but actually conforms to reality and roman law.

The thing is that we have multiple independent documents that confirm that Jesus died on the cross…how do you explain that?.........a massive conspiracy?

How is it possible that nobody noticed that Jesus survived in the Cross? (Not even his family) (Not even the romans or the Jews?)

Did Jesus recover from a crucifixion in just 3 days? (That sounds like a miracle to me)

Did Jesus lie to everybody and told then ? Why would he do that?

There is an explanation for why Jesus was buried instead of being there rotting in the cross like the mayority of criminals... Joseph a power full member of the Sanhedrin asked
Pontius Pilate for the body, given that Joseph had political influences and that Pilate didn’t considered Jesus a criminal it´s likely that he would allow Joseph to take the body.

 

[leroy]

Ow? So when did you examine the fart of an extra-dimensional pixie so that you could determine that its far was made of matter?

Because a fart is a gas (matter) that comes out of a butt (matter) therefore farts can’t predate matter, therefore farts can’t be the cause of matter. And since you can’t have matter without space-time, farts can’t be the cause of space-time ether.

Butts and gases, by definition are made out of matter; the concept of an immaterial butt is simply incoherent, so any “theory” for the origin of the universe that invokes an “inmaterial butt” could simply be rejected because it would be logically incoherent.

So unless you show that the concept of God is incoherent, you have no justification in placing God and pixies farting in the same category