Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.
If instead you want to jump ahead, it would be more proper for you to express a proposition that disconfirms Christianity. You may have tried this direct route already, but I've answered in place and we may need to continue to engage that. I admit the Bible is my source, but if you want to investigate the truth claims it needs to be done without the informal logical fallacy (well-poisoning) of declaring it stupid without testing the evidence. You may, for instance, object to "miracle" as being "supernatural", but Christians believe all events follow laws and so they realize (C. S. Lewis, Miracles) that we only call it "magic" until we understand the laws at work. If you were previously exposed to Christians who officiously refused to investigate topics labeled "miracle", that's not the only kind of Christian there is. (Per your first question, they and I would be happy to dialogue toward agreement in one spirit.)
I claim to know enough answer to put it into words and to indicate the part of the answer I don't know. Every origin theory does the same. I was reading an eminently reasonable black-hole paper where it's properly indicated that we can't know anything about black holes by direct observation; but what we do know is that black hole theory is the simplest explanation and anything else would require greater complexity and have less probative power. All scientific progress depends on finding, not the perfect theory of everything, but the theory with greatest explanatory power. If my theory happens to encapsulate everything under the name "God", and a different one does so under the name "many worlds hypothesis" or "strong anthropic principle", there is no prima facie reason to prefer one over the other.
By objecting, you imply you're claiming to know definitively it wasn't this "God". Your evidence for that implication is not forthcoming. But I'm very thankful to you that you keep trying.
Okay... I think I know where you're going with this now... This is pure sophistry.
This is wrong on 3 main points.
1.) "Greatest" is a subjective opinion, and therefore not something that can be measured. You would have to define an objective trait that can actually be measured such as "largest" or "fastest" or something that's not an opinion.
2.) In order to be testable you have to limit the range of the test. You can do a test to find the biggest animal at the zoo, but finding the biggest animal on earth is nearly impossible. If you're trying to test which animal is the biggest in the universe it's totally untestable. No matter how big of an animal you found, you could never say it's the biggest in existence. And so once again it's not testable.
3.) Even if this argument didn't suffer from those 2 fatal flaws, it still fails because it's logically unsound for the following reasons.
Having the most knowledge in existence ≠ All knowing
Having the most power in existence ≠ All powerful
So even if you could determine which being in the universe knows the most, that doesn't mean it knows everything, or that it matches your conception of god.
Let me apply this same exact argument to my house and you'll see the flaw.... I say I have 80,000 sq foot room in my house filled to the ceiling with gold.
Here's my argument in support of that.... The size of a room can be measured. The amount of gold in a room can be measured. That means out of all the rooms in my house there must logically exist a room that is the biggest. And there must also logically exist a room which contains the most gold.
Therefore with that logic alone, you can know that I have an 80,000 sq foot room in my house full of gold.
Did I just prove I have a Scrooge McDuck sized gold vault in my house, or was that just sophistry?
I'm glad you have a good grasp of logical fallacy, so we can speak more briefly.
I didn't specify the measurement standard, but by my reference to Democritus extent in spacetime is sufficient.
Science operates by reasonable inference from observation. We don't need to measure everything to know the Universe (or Cosmos, says great atheist Sagan) is the most extensive thing in spacetime.
I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet), nor did I argue that the most gold means nothing but gold.
The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real, so we need to compare the two classes.
Now, given that, we can measure other aspects of this Cosmos. Since Sagan defines it to be all that ever was, is, or will be, by that definition it comprises all else, including all action (power) and all encoded information (knowledge). There is no power or knowledge held by any part of the universe that is not also held by the universe itself, as Adler would proceed to demonstrate. Is that clear?
BTW.... I love how people will claim to be Christians yet when confronted with the absolute absurdity and stupidity of Christian doctrine and the bible they refuse to defend it, and instead retreat to generalized Deist arguments, that have NOTHING to do with the highly detailed and specific claims their religion makes.
Classic Motte and Bailey fallacy, and it's laughably transparent, and totally bad faith. Another clear demonstration you aren't pursuing truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
Then you are admitting that entire tangent was completely pointless because it has nothing to do with how you describe god.
You're very very close to an epiphany here..... The lightbulb is over your head right now just dying to light up.
If the logical thought exercise you put forward can be used to support 2 contradicting claims at the same time, what does that tell you about the validity of your thought exercise?
It means the thought exercise is invalid, and so are any arguments that rely on it. It's pointless mental masturbation that ends with whatever conclusion you want, based on where you choose to start.
Are you willing to admit you made an invalid argument? I don't think so. Because I don't think you actually pursue truth.
It's not a fallacy to want to proceed slowly and deal with foundations first before getting to the complexities. But the link I provided shows the whole chain to the essential deep claims for those who jump ahead.
The first foundation is the argument for the Cosmos being a greatest thing, which is fundamental to how Christians describe God (technically the Christian panentheist route). Then we discern the Cosmos contains all reality, activity, order, life, etc. If you want to divert to a specific feature of "God", go ahead; but we've resolved the point you raised, showing that the Greatest Thing is not "supernatural" according to the totality of known and unknown laws of nature. Great atheist James Randi proved this, saying: if a so-called "miracle" or "magic" occurs in scientific testing, it isn't truly supernatural but something about which newly known laws can be proposed.
The fact that a "most convincing" argument against deity must exist does not prove that argument is valid: I understood "convincing" in the sense of indeterminate probabilism. If I had said valid arguments for and against deity both exist, that would be invalid and false. The student of truth listens reasonably to all arguments for and against deity before selecting tentative or firmer conclusions. One argument eventually overpowers another by preponderance of evidence, and disagreements get resolved.
TLDR: The Cosmos contains all power and thought and life. Do you acknowledge, with great atheist Carl Sagan, that it exists and contains all that was, is, or will be? Would you decline to answer that question in colloquy with that fellow atheist? The rest is just refining evidence about this greatest thing, which we can get to as soon as we agree on the foundation.