Debating my God Arguments

Hate group atheism strikes again.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/comment/reply/18281/259687?quote=1


Rational response sqade, (hysterical response squad) is attacking my God arguments. People on their message board. I can't do anything about it because they have their boards set up so that I can't cut, paste or use spell check. For me that's really below the belts. The little band of Hitlerian thugs march on. Just for grins here's my answer to their stupidity. This made me angry because I feel that I'm unable to fight back. Now I wonder why should I view it as "fighting?"

this guy just listed the argument titles from the God arguent list and then makes a bunch of one line answers. I think he truly did not know that it was a list of titles and each one was linked to more pages. I think he really thought the list itself was one long disconnected argument.

1. Based on the false assumptions of every event needing a cause and of the impossibility of an infinite regress

You don't get to assume that ICR is estabilshed fact and opposing it is a fallacy. You must prove that it is. Logicians do not recognize this as a fallacy. You must prove it is. I have arguments that demonstrate the impossibility of ICR. You must answer them. You don't get to assert them.

My argument does not assume that everything needs a cause. It's carefully designed to avoid that, and I explain it very carefully. This makes me think that you didn't read it. I also think you didn't know this was a list of arguments.

2. (It's "New!" ) Assumes something "beyond empirical" in order to support a "beyond empirical" being. A.k.a question-begging

He even mocks the idea of a new argument on the list. That's nuts. To be so hyped up on hate and so desperate to make any sort of criticism that you actually criticize having a little icon that says "new" by an argument, that's pathetic.

3. Assumes a "before the universe" which may actually be inconsistant. False assumptions in 1 and 4.

He's confussed by this quote that I use by Dr. Odenwald a NASA physicist:

Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA IMAGE/POETRY Education and Public Outreach program

Q:Which came first, matter or physical laws?

"We do not know, but matter is derivative from energy, and energy is derivative from 'field' so in some sense, the physical laws that determine the quantum dynamics of fields must have been primary, with matter as we know it coming much later."

Clearly a NASA physicist is aware of the paradox of no "before" before time. But he's not saying there is literally a time before time.He's clearly talking about the physics that would govern the expansion of the singularity. There is a time before the universe. It's not a time before time but here is a time before the universe when the inflationary period first starts and before the actual universe is formed. It lasts about a nono second.

the argument doesn't depend on that. It does depend upon the idea of physical laws but that's the same requiring a time before time.

4. Ignores the observed fact that complexity can be built up from non-complex items and rules

That's a fallacy. The argument is not about complexity per se and it doesn't argue against moving from simple to complex. It's about probability he cant' demonstrate that fine tuning is not improbable.

5. Seriously? An argument from instinct? This is just silly. Equates evolution with "random chance" (as usual), and part e (that religion promotes health) is not actually supported by any research.

So typical of know nothing hate group atheism to poison the well. The dildo didn't even read the argument he just calls it some names. If evolution is not the product of random change whan what rationalistic force governs it? How does that differ from God?

I think what we have here is another ignorant little illiterate who thinks that all Christians are creationists. He thinks I'm arguing against evolution. why do these incredibly stupid people insist upon making comments on these ideas are so far over their heads they have no chance of every knowing anything aout them?

6. Argument from NOMA. See my earlier post in this thread as to why "beyond science" is ultimately meaningless.

This is some bizarre little atheist-speak they have developed that has nothing to do with real thinking. The ideologues are brainwashed into believing that this NOMA thing assures thier sucess and you can't doubt it or argue against because it's a fetish or totem of their cult. It has nothing to with my argument. He has about as much chance of understand Kuhn as the man in the Moon. But he's so determined that Kuhn is an evil creationist because he's not spouting the ideologoy of the cult.

If he ever goes to graduate school, or the moon. he wil find that Kun was not a creationist and he will be thunderstruck.

7. Assumption 2 is probably false and at least non-demonstrable. Ultimately it's a claim that science will never be capable of explaining mystical experiences, which is not supported in any way. Again see my earlier post with regards to using supernatural as a causal explanation.

Well at least there's some evidence that he read it. He didn't understand it but he read it.

here are the three assumptions, assuming he meant assumptinos and not propositons:

(1) The trace produced content with speicificually religious affects

(2)The affects led one to a renewed sense of divine relaity, are transformative of life goals and self actualization

(3) Cannot be accounted for by alteante cuasality or other means.

He says that number 2 here means that I'm saying science will never understand mysticism. What he means by "understand" is "explain away." No science will never explain away mysticism. That's not what I'm saying here. He can't argue with this assumption it has nothing to do with science explaining it and it's backed up by 300 studies. But he's talking about proposition 2 not assumption 2.


(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena.

He can't demonstrate that he can reduce them. He merely asserts that they have been.Of course he hasn't read my answers which the idiocy of thinking that the stupid brain chemistry studies prove anything.

(1) God has to use brain chemistry to communicate because that's how we communicate. So we can expect to find brain chemistry associated with these effects. that does not prove they are reduced to brain chemistry. that's just an argument from sign. that's where the ideology of cult kicks in and says "If there's a link to brain chemistry that the whole thing is disproved because a link means causality." Any other time these guys would argue that a correlation does not prove causality but when reductionism is at work then it does. They want to reduce it such that they lose the phenomena so all the need is a correlation and that's enough for them.

(2) Hood demonstrates that the M scale validates Stace's theory. That means that it can be used to determine the authentic nature of a mystical experience. John Hick proves that brain chemistry studies don't use the M scale. So most of the studies which claim to have produced mystical experience by chemicals cannot truly make that claim because they can't prove it was really mystical experience that they produced.

(3) There is a hos of other arguments that make commencement out of this assertion, it's actually doing nothing more than losing the phenomena. They can't explain why it has long term positive effects. They explain why it enables one to navigate in life. Most chemical embalances are determinable. this is the only case where they produced a much better life than one had before. They can't explain why that would be.

8. Assertion 3 is false. We know the "real world" exists due to independent confirmation. If I see a chair, I can ask another person if he sees that chair, and if we both see it then I can believe it's real. Also this is more an argument that mystical experiences are real without actually arguing that their supposed sources are real.

This is the Thomas Reid argument. He asserts "independent confirmation." What a stupid and meaningless phrase? What the hell is that? What sort of "independent confirmation is independent of one's perceptions? He asserts the illusion of the world can just be taken for granted and the problem of other minds will just go away because he wants confirmation. As it so happens I included "shared" or Inter subjective in my criteria. he should have seen that. RE does fit that criterion. But even so there' s no way to oprove our perception of other minds is real. We have to accept it and make a judgment to accept it. that' s my argument that's why he tried to deny.

I'm stopping here. I've demonstrated his arguments are pie crust. I am willing to debate him or any of them. It has to be on my turf. I have a board with a 1x1 debate board.

Just let me know when you are ready.