View Single Post
Old 02-09-2007, 02:56 PM   #44
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Mike Doolittle (Post #43):
Your mode of thinking is narrow and insulated. I'm suggesting you broaden your horizons, not that you should expect my perspective to change to fit your preconceptions.
The degree to which you want me to "broaden my horizon" would require my acceptances of the equally plausible ejaculating unicorn and farting bunny (as well as an infinite number of things which don't fit my "narrow" thinking). Demanding evidence is in no way narrow or insular, rather a requirement for rational discourse (something which is becoming more and more apparent that you don't want to have).

Now, if you cannot provide evidence for your god--and you can't--fine, don't. But at the same time, do not go around pretending that you came about your conclusion by reason--because you didn't. Also, do not attack the "mode of thinking" of the skeptic because he doesn't jump on your circular train.

The problem here is what you consider evidence is insular.
I consider evidence to be objectively persuasive demonstrations which serve the advocation of a theory. Yours is neither objective nor persuasive, hence my rejection of your theory. Is that so insular?

The problem is that your evidence isn't evidence it all, only rhetorical nodes.

I don't recall saying anything about defying natural law, like miracles or something. Being the architect of natural law requires transcendence of it, but not violation of it.
That's like saying that a foreigner is incapable of committing murder because he might have diplomatic immunity. Your god, being transcended, is more than capable of violating the laws it supposedly created. Moreover, you have to bend the laws which you've supposedly based it's existence on for it to exist. Oh yes you do.

God, being absolute and eternal, requires no cause.
Well isn't that just convenient. I have to say, Mike, your god is nothing if not cleverly designed. It requires no cause, it can transcend the laws it supposed created, it can't be verified with observable evidence. Remarkable. Now I know why you call it "God"--it would be considered arbitrary if you were talking about anything else. Your god requires no logical explanation it all--no falsifiable premise, no positive evidence, no observations of any kind--yet it's supposedly completely reasonable. Brilliant.

But since you are basing your criteria for "evidence" strictly on observation of natural law, you must also concede that you will obviously never find your "evidence" of the supernatural, since "supernatural" is by definition transcendent of natural law.
Sure, I'll make that concession on the condition that you concede that my criteria for evidence (with respect to both science and critical thinking--not law) is a well-established criteria which has historically been the most proficient means of ascertaining objective truth. That it not like your "god" which only exists inside of your "mind." If you accept that condition, then obviously you have to concede that you can't provide any evidence for your positions, that all your arguments are circular and thus not logical or even reasonable.

Last edited by Nicato; 02-09-2007 at 03:09 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote