Who says there's perfect circle? Atheist reasoning is a perfect circle

 
 Atheist cartoon illustrating what they think is circular reasoning.
 

This began on CARM when an atheist began demanding "actual data" that would prove the existence of God. It's' clear what he really meant was he emended that God be a tangible physical thing in creation before he could believe. He expressed that as "actual data." He's blurring the distinction between data that would point toward God's existence vs. God being an actual psychosocial property that he could touch and handle and see. I offered two sets of "actual data" (empirical scientific data) both of which point to God, the M scale based studies on mystical experience, and evidence for fine  tuning of the universe's anthropic principle. Of cousre neither of these satisfied him becuase he didn't' want mere data he wanted God to be something that requires no faith to believe in. In the process he exemplifies circular reasoning at it's most convoluted.

Originally Posted by Whatsisface

The so called fine tuning argument is not so much about scientific data, its more about a particular interpretation of scientific data.

 Meta:

you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data. why do you need actual data anyway?

Whatshisface:

The M scale is a subjective questionnaire, and as such can show nothing concrete.

 Meta

no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.

This is just another example of how the same people don't listen to the answers even when they are presented over and over again. I put up the link to the chapter in the text book by the guy who invented the M scale, Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. ( U. Tennessee Chattanooga) I put it up 147 times, those are the the one' s I counted. Probably more like 300 times. Two atheist looked at it one said he didn't understand it. The other said little more. This guy saw the link numerous times, he never looked at it. Now here he is regurgitating the same ignorance they all do becuase they refuse to read the material I offer.

Whatshisface:

I am baffled as to why if you think your opinions matter, you express them so vaguely. 

 Vaguely! I showed me a whole chapter in a science text book explaining the study methodology, real vague. who else on that board has gone to the lengths I have to explain his views? no one.

Meta

that's ludicrous. I'm not only one on this board who research and gives any kind of empirical evidence to back up his claims. most of your answers are just arguemnt form incredulity.

Whatshisface

The multiverse is a speculative answer to a speculative question. What we lack here is knowledge. Just because we lack knowledge doesn't mean you can legitimately say God did it.

They never seem to understand the concept of a justification argument. Nor do they understand of elemination. They can't offer any other solution, this is the one that works. So why not say it? Because it's the one they hate. Here's what I said on the board:

Meta:

thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked fort this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample. You are just saying "I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe."

where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?

Here I'm pointing out to them that the multivariate (the usual answer to fine tuning) has no empirical data to back it. He demands empirical data of God's existence but the answer to God's existence he will accept without data.

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data.

why do you need actual data anyway?

there's another jump here to another post there he's saying I don't need data becuase i have the M scale (never mind that it is the metholgocial procedure that resutls in the data).

Whatshisface

So you can say it about the Mscale then. All you think you can show from it and your studies is an interpretation of data. Why do you need data anyway?

 Meta

same reason men climb mountains. why do you reject the data you ask for when you get it?

Actually The point he's making is illogical becuase he goes from "that's just interpreting data" to why do you need data, with no justification, becuase I never intimated that I don't need data. I did ask him why he does. that's a question of what one decides is data. The atheists would not accept anyting as data pointing toward God, nothing short of actual finger prints or DNA samples. Even then they would doubt it. In my view experience of Gdo's presence is data. the M scales makes it possible to pin down exactly what is an actual mystical experience, that enables us to compress the effects of having mystical experience to not having it. that enables us to show that it makes a huge difference in people's lives, that proves religion works in that it does the thing sit claims to do. Then there is also the universal element of religious experience which is a good indication that it is an experience of soemthing beyond the human mind.

He asserts it's not objective

Meta

no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.

whatshisface

See above.

He just says "see above meaning his statement that the M scale is not objective.

Meta:

man you guys just cannot stay away from the circular reasoning can you? when I say atheist hate logic you get all up set but obviously you do becuase just think in circles. I just disproved what's above, you can't answer. so instead of trying you say "see above." then I guess when I point this out you'll say "see below."

thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked for this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe.

what'shisface

I don't use the multiverse as an answer to anything. You brought up fine tuning, my response was to say that you don't know whether the universe is the only way it could be or not, you ignored this point.

He tries to worm out of the multiverse problem by using a different answer. That answer illustrates why the multiverse argument is the atheist answer of choice, because this answer sux.

I quoted Davies (who was the darling of atheists when he wrote God and the New Physics but now they hate him because he turned Deist and wrote the Mind of God). He says the universe did not have to be the way it is. Not just any old universe will do but it must be the way it is to fine life. Meaning it had be purposely fine tanned becuase the odds of it stacking up that way are so extremely remote. that's an indication the game is fixed.

Davies:

"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."

"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)

Meta:

same principle. you are doing what I said you would with the FN only in terms of any other argument. you wanted data, you got data, you are want the data after all.

where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?

Whatshisface

I don't disbelieve for the sake of it. Theism hasn't met it's evidential burden.

 Meta

ahahahaahahh AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA I JUT BLEEDING DID! i DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASK FOR. i HAVE GAVE TWO AREAS OF HARD SCIENTIFIC DATA ALL YOU DID WAS USE CIRCULAR REASONING AND INCREDULITY TO QUIBBLE SO THAT YOU COULD SLIDE OUT OF THE BURDEN ACCEPTING IT, THEN YOU THE HAVE THE GAUL TO TURN AROUND AND SAY "THEISM JUST WONT MEET MY BURDEN.

BURDEN OF WHAT FALLACIES? CIRCULAR REASONING?

 I might not blow my stack like this if I hadn't put up a link to the M scale stuff 147 times and they all refuse to read it. Then claim the very stuff the chapter linked to would have dispelled but they refuse to look at it. So what they really want is not data but to pretend that they have no been given data. When you do give it they refuse to accept or even read about it.

the Circular bit is that we get through this torturous process of denial then he just asserts all the positions I just got though bashing as I didn't say anything.

The cartoon at the begining is circular reasoning. There are Christians who argue that way, they need to stop. they need ot learn some basic logic. The atheists are no better then need to learn some basic logic too. We can make a cartoon like this:

Atheist: there is no scientific data to prove God exits.

believer: here's some

Atheist: I refuse to recognie this

Believer: why it meets all the criteria?

Atheist: see above.

Atheist Circular Reasoning

Atheist "Guru" HRG argues for the Multiverse. I put up the thread that says multiverse is not backed by emprical evdience that is a contradiction to the atheist credo "don't believe things without empirical evidence." Harris says "to believe things with very little empirical evidence shows something is wrong with your mind." HRG argues that our universe serves as a sample of the multiverse so we can know the MV would be life bearing.

I argue the problem is that's not empirical evidence of the multiverse. Before you can assert that our universe is a sample fof the MV you must first prove there is a MV and prove it not with math or theory but with actual empirical evidence! Overwise you are believing stuff without empricial evidence. Of course they mainly try to get out by using theoretical evidence to correlate to the idea of empirical. I can do that with God arguments.

I charge this tactic of trying to assume we live in a sample of the MV then using that prove that the MV exits is circular reasoning.


post 11

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that's just rationalization. I didn't experience myself I experienced something way beyond me. Me and millions of others and it's not indifferent.

HRG:

There is no objective evidence that you did not just experience an alternative state of consciousness.

Meta:

you are speaking drivel. that's a term with very little real stable meaning. Assuming you mean some irrational blick that has no objective content then such a state cannot be transformational and therefore mystical experience is proved by hundreds studies not to be a "mere alternative state." That's a chimera. The concepts of the same reality. you can't decide them up they are conceptualizing the same thing. the experiences are proved to the same.

HRG:

By what objective measuring device ? And the interpretations of this kind of experience are certainly different.

Meta:

get it through your head right now, stop your childish prattle and face the facts: ALL THE WAY.M SCALE IS OBJECTIVE IT IS AN OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT. I'VE TOLD YOU THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN THERE'S NO WAY IT CAN BE AN ACCENT. IT'S GOT CROSS CULTURAL VERIFICATION IN DOZEN CULTURES. THE FINDINGS ARE CONSISTENT.

It passes the rational test of being an objective replicable representative means of measuring an experience for matching criteria pertaining to that experience.

(due to the "M scale" which is a means of testing mystical experience)

that does not make it proof. that is begging the question.

HRG

OK. I'll spell it out slowly for you:

1. If the MV concept is instantiated in reality, then our local universe is a part of the MV (by definition).
2. Our local universe makes life possible (observation)

I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU! You can't prove that without circular reasoning.

you are using the assertion that we are part of it to prove that it exists based upon data form us. if we are only the universe there is then we are not part of it and you have not proved anything. YOU ARE TRYING TO USE THE THING IN QUESTION TO PROVE THE QUESTION AND ITS CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!

OF COURSE THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF CIRCULAR.



HRG:
Conclusion:

If the MV concept is instantiated in reality, then part of the MV makes life possible.

Meta

YOU HAVE NO EMPIRICAL PROOF THAT IT IS. SO YOU CAN'T CLAIM US AS EMPIRICAL PROOF BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE PART OF IT.

Atheists Caught in Contradiction can be Danderous

The atheists have told me over and over that there is no "fortress of facts." It's a phrase I narrowed to describe the atheist reliance upon a self selected process of accepting only the facts that support the atheist project and ignoring those that count against it.

The atheist son this board refuse to admit they they have this concept. Yet it's proved every time Big Thinker writes. He's a "one trick pony" no offense. BT's one trick is "we have gobs of facts about nature and stuff but you don't have any facts to back up God. Since God is an idea in the mind and you have no facts to prove he's real then he's just an idea in the mind!

that is exactly the fortress of facts. So you can't argue that it doesn't exist and isn't used when BT uses it all the time.

http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...33#post2480533
post no 14:

"The argument is that your God doesn't exist outside of your imagination. That's why all you can produce is arguments instead of factual evidence."

he had a whole thread "why aren't the theist hammering us with facts about their God?" that's saying the exact idea.

even HRG helps spread the propaganda:

post 11: ""God" is obviously a concept in human minds. It may be instantiated in reality, but where is the sufficient evidence to believe that it is ?"

here he looks to evidence in the from of "facts" as the deciding factor. Of course I've given facts for years and they are totally ignored because anything not counting for the atheist view is automatically discounted as nonsense.

Contradiction!


HRG has no facts that support Multiverse yet that's his openly real argument agaisnt God arguments. He may argue that they prove but he doesn't have any kind of positive proof except the multiverse. Yet there is no factual basis for any proof favoring it. There's no empirical evidence of it.

Its' all theoretical. mathematically based arguments are not empirical proof. Not only is he contradicting the atheist credo that we cant' believe without proof but he's also contradicting BK's one and only trick. Because without empirical proof the MV is just a concept in the mind. Apply what he says above:

MV" is obviously a concept in human minds. It may be instantiated in reality, but where is the sufficient evidence to believe that it is ?"

Ditto dark matter
string theory
ect
ect

Some of the atheists responses to this are very instructive. essentially they went ape. One tried to jack up mathematics to the level of empirical proof calling it "factual." "Mathematics are facts" he says. Therefore, the mathematical proofs of multivariate are facts too. It doesn't work that way I can do it too. Logic has facts It's a fact that an illogical argument is deemed untrue.

another such attempt is where some try to claim an "empirical bounce" for MV theory becuase it's derived from other theories that are empirically based.

Sithdoughnut says:

If this counts as empirical, why are you dismissing my examples? I can only conclude that you didn't understand me.

Let me explain: just like you're based the CA theory upon another theory, the MV is also based upon other theories. I believe (but I may be wrong), that quantum mechanics is one of them. In other words, an MV based upon QM cosmology is emprically based.

By "this" he means my big bang cosmology dependent cosmological argument. There's a huge difference. The big bang and singularity are derived from empirical data that directly demonstrates their truth. The theory of the mulitverse is derived from theories that have empirical elements, such as QM particles, but that doesn't mean there's any empirical evidence for mutliverse. They are trying to produce this "empirical bounce" where the empirical nature of one theory rubs off on another. It doesn't work that way because it's still not directly empirical. The big bang is.