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:
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.
I was being satirical trying to help you notice the absurdity in using mental masturbation to define something into existence without having to describe it, identify it, or even show that it's real.
Also, you seem to think science is merely agreeing with the opinions of someone who is a scientist. It's not... Science is the scientific method. I could care less what Carl Sagan's random opinions are.
Anyways, I'll just end by saying this... I don't believe you are a real Christian. And what I mean by that is I don't think you actually believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, I don't think you actually believe in heaven and hell, and I don't think you actually believe in the Christian God.
Real Christians don't shy away from citing the bible as THE one and only authoritative source that Trumps everything else. Real Christians are proud to claim the label "supernatural" on behalf of their God and they are happy to argue directly for the blood of Christ washing away your sins. They don't make arguments where they equate god to the universe or a force of nature.
You my friend, are not a Christian. You are transitioning to an atheist, you're just not all the way there yet.
And belief is not voluntary. You never chose to be a Christian. And you never chose to start having doubts. And if and when you stop believing entirely, that won't be by choice either. It will simply be the natural result of your growing doubts.
And I will say this... Losing your religion is like going through the five stages of grief, and that's why many atheist's have a reputation for being angry. It's because they are.
Myself, I'm already on acceptance, and personally I like Christianity (real Christianity not fake internet Diest-christianity) and think it's a force for good in the world. I can see how it provides benefits to it's believers.
But like I said belief is not a choice. Once an illusion has been shattered there's no putting it back together even if you wanted to. I wish you luck on your journey and please remember this comment when you enter the anger phase. Remember you'll come out of it just fine in the end and trying to cling to something you know isn't true will only prolong your misery.
Good luck on your journey.