1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured If God Writes Something With the Stars...

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by thomas t, Feb 20, 2021.

?
  1. yes

    4 vote(s)
    28.6%
  2. no, I would search for or look out for answers the scientific method could provide.

    6 vote(s)
    42.9%
  3. no. Other reasons.

    3 vote(s)
    21.4%
  4. no, I would rather believe in aliens moving the stars, instead

    1 vote(s)
    7.1%
  1. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,049
    Ratings:
    +7,013
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Obviously you do.

    Indeed. You ignore the entire argument. It's a perfect analogy in context.
    And not ignoring the example / analogy would force you to actually draw the analogy and you can't have that as that would threaten your dogma.

    Because the logic in the argument applied to the evidence and undetectable nature of unicorns, applies virtually unchanged to the evidence and undetectable nature of any gods.

    This makes gods about as likely, supported and plausible as unicorns.

    Not generalizing at all.
    In previous discussion as well, you have shown that you like to go out of your way to either "explain away" inconvenient evidence with magical assertions (like when you said that god placed fossils of creatures that never existed in the ground and thereby thus faking history while refusing to call it "planting false evidence" - and all that just to explain the fossil record in a YEC universe), or to just ignore logic all together.

    And you do this because of your a priori dogmatic position to protect your faith based beliefs.
     
  2. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,386
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't think it's a perfect analogy.
    You are comparing a potential deity that matters to things that don't matter at all if existent.
    I just don't care about things that don't matter. That's all.
    You don't get to make me think about useless stuff such as unicorns, fairies and whatever things you invent in the first place.
    They don't matter to me, even if they exist.
    End of debate.

    see above.
    actually I don't.
    Can we get off this merry go round please?
    I have other things to do...
    not generalizing you say ?
    You said I purportedly ignored everything inconvenient for my faith.
    If this is not generalizing then I don't know what generalizing is.
    I don't refuse logic.
    I said, God uses fossils for third reasons. Just to bring messages accross.
    He wants to teach us a message about our own bodies how they are intended to be.
    That's at least my interpretation of the fossil record.


    As I said in the last debate we had:
    If a landlord replaces a ruined house by a new one, nobody complains,
    if God changes earthes we live on (see 2 Peter 3:5-6), atheists shout "planting false evidence" - this is biased, I think. Anti-God bias, as I would call it.

    Now: what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

    Nothing.

    May I ask you: Don't divert from the topic at hand any further please.
    Let's focus on the topic of the thread.
    This isn't about my person and what I purportedly do or don't do.
    So lets keep it on topic, please.
    Don't just repeat past debates we were having.
    Look I have pleanty of things to do. I can't just debate everything for the second time with you.

    EDITED adding a Bible verse
     
    #82 thomas t, Feb 23, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  3. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,085
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Christian
    Probably a reference to rhinoceros.
     
  4. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,085
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    Christian
    Both positions are positions of belief however.
     
  5. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,049
    Ratings:
    +7,013
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Off course it is.
    Both undetectable unicorns and undetectable gods are equally testable, verifiable, falsifiable and supportable.

    The "evidence" both have going for them is identical in nature.
    As such, they are indistinguishable from each other and other non-existing things.

    Nope. A thing would have to have some sort of detectable manifestation if it would matter at all in anything.

    But since both gods and unicorns are undetectable, they "matter" equally in anything. Which is to say: not at all. You can assert all you want that your god matters to things. I can assert the same about the unicorns. In fact, I could even assert that your god works for the unicorns.

    And I'ld have the exact same evidence as you to support that claim.

    Neither do I. That's one of the many reasons why I am an atheist.
    God shows up nowhere, except between people's ears. Just like unicorns.

    1. not my inventions

    2. Seems like you miss the point of the analogy. It's not about the unicorns or fairies. It's about the nature of those claims, and the evidence in support of it. In terms of the nature of the claims and the evidence in support of it, they are perfectly analogous to gods. All of them are undetectable entities without demonstrable manifestation whatsoever, unfalsifiable and thereby indistinguishable from things that don't exist.


    Ostrich defense, it is.

    That's not a generalization. That's a matter of observation.
    Every inconvenient fact, you actively try to explain away with ad hoc inventions, strange trails of thoughts, false equivocations, simple ignoring (like with the analogy above) or as last resort - claims of magical undetectable intervention (cfr "god planted fossils in the ground").

    You are very consistent in this behavior.

    Exactly as I said. You claim that god planted fossils in the ground, instead of fossils being the natural remains of creatures that lived a long time ago. From this follows that he specifically ordered them so that their apparent age and location would make sense in context of an evolutionary history which supposedly never happened. He also apparently went out of his way to make the nested hierarchical structure of DNA match with the anatomy of the creatures in the "fake" fossil record and have it all make sense in terms of age and location. So indeed exactly as I said: planting fake evidence and thereby tricking us into believing in a false history.

    Excellent example of your post hoc attempts at marrying reality with your scientifically illiterate beliefs.


    Everything. It is the root of the problem.
    You write an OP and ask the question if some what-if unlikely thing would make us believe in gods.

    The problem is that the very question reveals the disconnect you have with reality and rational reasoning.
    And this disconnect manifests in pretty much everything you say when it comes to discussing your religious beliefs.

    It all centers around a basic thought, which is the primary difference between you and me, and that thought it:

    "When the evidence of reality contradicts your a priori beliefs, it's not reality that is incorrect..."

    But you have taken on the dogmatic beliefs that it is impossible for your a priori beliefs to be incorrect. So when reality contradicts it, or is otherwise not really compatible with it, you just assume that reality isn't real (cfr god planted fossils) or something else, other then your belief off course, is wrong.

    And you likely don't even see the problem with such a mentality.

    I consider it very much on topic. It's also not about you, as in "your person". It rather is about the reasoning errors you make which underline everything, including the OP.
     
    #85 TagliatelliMonster, Feb 23, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  6. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,049
    Ratings:
    +7,013
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Sure.
    But one is based on evidence and isn't dogmatic, while the other is based on faith and is dogmatic.
     
  7. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    59,309
    Ratings:
    +17,200
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I find fairies especially interesting to me, because fairies are really just a sincere religious belief that has fallen out of favour in recent history.

    Using fairies as an example of something ridiculous, or - as you're doing - dismissing them as a concept not even worth considering - underscores something I realized a while ago: nothing is as ridiculous as someone else's religion.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,386
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Christian
    if existent, the God would matter,
    the unicorn would not.
    This is a difference that matters.

    End of debate.
    my mentality is not the topic of this thread!
    Stop diverting from it finally, thank you.

    this is not the topic of this thread.

    Stop diverting from the topic making it a thread between you and me, and the difference between you and me.
    Stop it please.
    The topic can be read in the title, please

    Nothing I wrote "reveals the disconnect you have with reality and rational reasoning.", as you say. So "this disconnect" does not manifest "in pretty much everything you say when it comes to discussing your religious beliefs", as you say.

    BTW, the way I post IS NOT the topic of this thread, please stop diverting from it, thank you.
    The way I argue is not the topic of this thread, please.
    Don't get personal please.
    Debate the subject, not the person please, if you think I am not qualified for this debate, leave it please, thank you.

    One standard answer:
    I think I didn't make any reasoning mistakes here. Even if you reiterate that I did according to you.
     
    #88 thomas t, Feb 23, 2021
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2021
  9. thomas t

    thomas t non-denominational Christian

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    1,386
    Ratings:
    +335
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'm not saying this religion or any other religion, or fairies themselves are ridiculous, in case you meant this.
    I just don't care about fairies, unicorns and Big Foot..
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,547
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    christian
    Well if you see such a message in the stars, would you at least conclude that an intelligent designer did it?
     
  11. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,547
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    christian
    Arguments like the Kalam Cosmological argument, complexity of life, fine tuning, the resurrection of Jesus, etc would apply to God but not to Unicorns.

    (Assuming that you define Unicorn as a horse-like creature with a horn and magic)

    For example the KCA leads you to an immaterial cause of the universe, and unicorns are material things.

    So the evidence is not the same,
     
  12. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    3,547
    Ratings:
    +307
    Religion:
    christian
    The scenario proposed in the OP is analogous to the Fine tuning of the universe, if the FT argument doesn’t convince fanatic atheists like those on YouTube and forums, I doubt that such a message would change something.

    In response to the question, well it is evident from this post that such a message would not convert a great number of atheists, and my guess is that such a message would only cause more anger and hate towards God…………….from the bible we know that miracles are not so good in converting people , they tend to create more anger hate and enemies. For example Jesus ended up with more enemies than followers by performing miracles.
     
  13. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,138
    Ratings:
    +8,032
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    I am not atheist, but how would doing that be definitive evidence for God and rule out any other possible source of the writing?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,138
    Ratings:
    +8,032
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    If atheists do not believe in God or any god, why is it that you think they hate God? Hating something implies that the hater considers that which is hated to exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,138
    Ratings:
    +8,032
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    Whatever it would take to keep it calm.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,138
    Ratings:
    +8,032
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    I don't find the fine tuning argument convincing and I am a Christian.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,937
    Ratings:
    +4,926
    Religion:
    none
    Most likely. Possibly on par with me hallucinating. I don't even exclude it being a miraculous force, just that that would be my last thought and it would take a lot of evidence, not just me experiencing it. Experiences can be deceptive, science minimizes the possibility of delusion or deception.
    When something goes against all the evidence that there is no magic, there would have to be just as much evidence for there being magic to balance my former conception.
     
  18. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,049
    Ratings:
    +7,013
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Because you say so?
    I can just as easily claim the exact opposite.

    Things don't matter just because you assert that they matter. You have to actually demonstrate HOW they matter. Which is impossible to do, when it concerns undetectable, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable entities - as such entities are by definition without manifestation.

    And for an entity to matter in ANYTHING, one requires detectable manifestation.

    Did you really think asserting that would work?


    As I explained in the parts you conveniently left out of the quote, it is very much on topic for this thread.
    Because in your OP, you are exposing exactly that... you are exposing that you assume your answers before even asking the question.

    You ask the question about the "text in star arrangement" from the idea that your god is the only possible explanation for such - which by itself is just another baseless assertion.

    So I'm pointing out the flaw in your OP

    The thread title itself already reveals that which I am saying here and which you are very much avoiding to discuss: that you assume your answers.

    The title says "if god writes something in the stars".
    But really, your actual question is if we as atheists would look at the night sky and see stars arranged in the formation of an english sentence, if we would assume that god did it.

    But the very premise of the hypothetical, includes the statement that god did it.
    So once again, you assume the answers.

    Obviously, if god demonstrably does anything, then obviously god exists.


    It does and I gave plenty of example on how it does.

    I am debating the subject.

    You did and I explained it as well.
     
  19. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,049
    Ratings:
    +7,013
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You could replace "god" with "unicorn" or any other unfalsifiable / mythical creature in any of these arguments and their merrit would be virtually unchanged.

    Fallacious arguments are fallacious.

    That's the thing about unfalsifiable creatures. You can define them any which way you want, as long as the definition doesn't make them falsifiable.

    It does not. At best, it just asserts such. There is nothing in KCA that excludes material causes.
    Then again, KCA is a cesspool of logical fallacies and this assumed conclusion is just one of them.

    Or they just manifest as such, just like your "immaterial god" supposedly manifested as a "material jesus".

    Fallacious arguments aren't evidence.
     
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    9,049
    Ratings:
    +7,013
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Fallacious arguments don't tend to convince rational thinkers.

    Being creative with the bible, are we?
    It seems to me that what angered people in that story, is not his supposed performing of miracles, but rather the things he said, or were said about him, and his non-miraculous actions.

    Like causing havoc in the temple and being called "king of kings". Accusations of blasphemy by the jews were also part of it if memory serves me right.

    Nowhere in the story does it say that Romans executed him because he "healed the sick" or "cured the blind" or "turned water into wine" or what-have-you.


    Having said all that............

    The what-if in the OP is an example of assuming your answers.
    It takes a(n imaginary) phenomenon and then just asserts that god-dun-it.

    You need to actually demonstrate the causal chain of events - not just assert it.

    I'll accept God exists and did X the day the causal relationship between this God and X can be demonstrated.
    As long as it is just asserted in unverifiable, unsupportable, undefendable ways.... why would I accept it?
     
Loading...