Page 42 of 42 FirstFirst ... 32404142
Results 411 to 416 of 416

Thread: Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles

  1. Top | #411
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    682
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,602
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    You are unquestionably assuming your conclusion is true and working backward from there.

    This is no one's first rodeo, remez.
    Well it seems to be your first rodeo. Because your statement is very very questionable in the face of the abductive argument I provided. The conclusion is not assumed to be true. That is obvious in the construction. So how in the face of the evidence to the contrary can you delude that I’m assuming the conclusion?

    Before you respond…..let me give it a shot. Because I have seen this one before in the rodeo. Possibly you have my reasonable belief in God existence conflated with my arguments conclusion. I do not deny I have a prior reasonable belief that God exists and that belief is not presumptuous either, for I have provided my reasoning supporting that belief here in this thread more than once. It is there for you to challenge.
    But…….
    The conclusion of my abductive argument is dependent upon the truth of the premises and the abductive reasoning that leads to the conclusion. No overt presumptions anywhere.
    Unless…….you fooled yourself here………….and………..
    You are reasoning that since I already believe (and can argue) that God exists. Then any argument I provide related to his existence is therefore presumptuous because I already believed he existed in the first place.
    Well….
    Think carefully about that this time. That faulty reasoning would eliminate all argument for anything. The scientific search for anything. Because the minute you try to argue for anything, you must first have the thing in mind that you are arguing for, but that, by your reasoning renders the conclusion presumptuous. We believed that the Higg's Boson existed and had reasons to look for it. Were those looking for it presumptuous?
    See…………
    Even your conclusion, that I’m unquestionably presuming my conclusion, is presumptuous on your part, because you are arguing for that thing you’ve already concluded.

  2. Top | #412
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    682
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,602
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    (2) But I do and did get the drift of your challenge. You would address it with the same rules of reasoning and evidence that you would in adjudicating any event in a court of law, hence my list of jury instruction regarding testimony that I provided last time. Now I know many of you missed the point there. Those are the same jury instructions for cold case events as all and that is what were are concerned with here. You are just assuming there is no reasoning involved. I have in my conversations here presented evidence and reasoning for my four facts. Basically to this context the governing rules of historical criticism are a must. But keep in mind that your are not exactly comparing apple to apples here. Your alien fixation doesn't seem to be presented as a cold case, historical event. In regards to the resurrection we would be addressing the evidence and reasoning as we were addressing a any cold case event.
    You missed that jury instructions are to ignore hearsay. This isn't given in the final instructions because, if some sleazy lawyer slimps hearsay in during the trial, that testimony is struck and the jury, at the time, is instructed to ignore it. This is because hearsay is meaningless.
    I haven’t ignored that at all. You have made the charge of hearsay. Fine. But even sleazy lawyers would correctly contest that a charge is not a case for rejection. Which of my four facts is hearsay and why? Make your case.

    Keep in mind. This is a very cold case. A case that greatly predates modern terminology. My presented jury instructions were provided in the context of “your what” rules we could use to adjudicate the cases of the resurrection vs alien abduction. AGAIN my point there was that there was more reasoning to consider than just blind faith, which was what you were inferring by guilt of association. What I presented is the bar of adjudication for even cold cases. Cases so cold that the witnesses are gone and their testimony was never recorded in court. Are you aware that there are over two dozen exceptions to your stated rule of hearsay? I reasonably do not accept your hearsay charge upon face value. You need the make a case for rejection in the context of the supporting historical criticism present here in this case. Look again at the simplicity of the facts I have claimed. The conclusion is debatable no doubt, but the four simple facts? Which one is hearsay and why is it hearsay?

    Keep in mind, our context here is ancient historical criticism……..ex..
    All of what we know of Alexander comes from sources 400 years or later than his life.

  3. Top | #413
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    682
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,602
    Rep Power
    45
    So Unfair…….

    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    I knew you'd do that. I saw my error on that point after posting. But I figured someone interested in reason must apply the principle of charity and skip niggling over an error
    I clearly addressed your concern of atonement and immortality. For the third time now, they are not directly related to my case and I’m not going to address them in the middle of this case. What you quoted there was my “just in case you go there caution” based on what YOU wrote. Your ad-hominin attack was unfair.
    Now…
    Let me reestablish your the context of your next quote/response. You claimed that you had no supernatural bias. You were asserting that the supernatural could exist. So you instructed me that I should just address your reasoning based upon your openness to the supernatural.
    So…
    I began by attempting to show you the contradiction in your reasoning and your stated openness to the supernatural. You were begging the question for naturalism in reasoning but blindly asserting an openness to the supernatural. Despite your believed openness to the supernatural, your reasoning clearly rejected it. So that is what I attempted to show you.
    Watch…………
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    you are begging the question to naturalism
    with
    your insistence/reasoning/conclusion that the judgement of experiences must have a naturally explained outcome
    or
    it is all to be conclude just human imagination
    which is
    by reverse association of guilt
    supernatural.
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    You've done a wonderful job illustrating that undermining reason is necessary to make Christian mythology seem reasonable.
    (1) your statement there by design was meant to infer I was being “mean/bully/negative” because I undermined your reasoning. Think about it for a minute this time. You and I have been here before, with you complaining about the same nonsensical nonsense. When two people oppose one another in their reasoning, it is implied domain to reveal where the others reasoning is wrong as well as put forth a positive case for the POV. I have the positive case on the table. You are opposing that. Should I infer you are a negative representative of your group because you find fault in my reasoning?

    (2) Your attempt to report fault in my reasoning was based on …..Your reasoning. Your reasoning is what I was addressing above. The reasoning of where you addressed my reasoning as wrong. I simply attempted to show you the fault in your reasoning AGAINST my reasoning, and your reply, directly but incorrectly, inferred was I was being a negative and that reflects poorly on Christianity. Nonsense.

    (3) your statement again…………..
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    You've done a wonderful job illustrating that undermining reason is necessary to make Christian mythology seem reasonable.
    …….seems to admit/confirm I was correct. You are not open to the supernatural what so ever. You couldn’t (as challenged) name a supernatural event.
    So………..
    You confirm I was correct but infer that Christianity is negative because I, a representative thereof, showed you to be wrong on one point. Unfair to say the least.
    But you dug deeper…………..
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Some folk want evidence, and I want to know why God uses symbology to perform his magic. And your response is unbelievers are dogmatically closed off.
    Regarding evidence…. I gave a positive argument as and with evidence.

    And now……” I want to know why God uses symbology to perform his magic.”..I never claimed God did magic. That is your straw man to flame.
    And…
    My response was not dealing that newly constructed magic straw man. My response was dealing with your old reasoning regarding naturalism.
    So…
    To infer that my reasoning was addressing your unrelated magic straw man is again unfair.
    And deeper still you dug…………….
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    It's an extreme elaboration on the "you skeptics are close-minded" ploy. "Reasoned faith" is nothing but the excuses that "the dumb Christians" use, except elaborated.
    Another absurd straw man. I do not espouse that skeptics are close minded in any general sense. On that particular issue, with one particular individual,…YOU…I provided reasoning to expose your one fault with that one line of reasoning.
    So
    To extend that you the extremes you did was completely ….UNFAIR.

  4. Top | #414
    Senior Member remez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    682
    Archived
    920
    Total Posts
    1,602
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Another Christian retort. God does not have to obey how reality works for us humans. After all he, she, or it is 'god'.
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    That to me, is nothing more than an axiomatic statement about the relationship that exists between a creator and its created. If that is incorrect as you infer, then tell me what is correct.
    Axiomatic? Too intellectual. Religion is about feelings. God created the universe. Biblically he caused destruction at will. God controls reality. It is in the bible, numerous examples.
    As I see it. Your response is a complete non-sequitur. You aren’t defending the pseudo-complaint I challenged. You just brought forth a new set of feelings.

  5. Top | #415
    Veteran Member skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    4,553
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    17,529
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post

    (2) But I do and did get the drift of your challenge. You would address it with the same rules of reasoning and evidence that you would in adjudicating any event in a court of law, hence my list of jury instruction regarding testimony that I provided last time. Now I know many of you missed the point there. Those are the same jury instructions for cold case events as all and that is what were are concerned with here. You are just assuming there is no reasoning involved. I have in my conversations here presented evidence and reasoning for my four facts. Basically to this context the governing rules of historical criticism are a must. But keep in mind that your are not exactly comparing apple to apples here. Your alien fixation doesn't seem to be presented as a cold case, historical event. In regards to the resurrection we would be addressing the evidence and reasoning as we were addressing a any cold case event.
    You missed that jury instructions are to ignore hearsay. This isn't given in the final instructions because, if some sleazy lawyer slimps hearsay in during the trial, that testimony is struck and the jury, at the time, is instructed to ignore it. This is because hearsay is meaningless.
    I haven’t ignored that at all. You have made the charge of hearsay. Fine. But even sleazy lawyers would correctly contest that a charge is not a case for rejection. Which of my four facts is hearsay and why? Make your case.
    You obviously don't know what the word 'hearsay' means. Your four claims are not first hand or even second hand accounts. That makes them hearsay. Since you cited the California legal system, you may want to read California's position on hearsay evidence (it's not allowed). The post immediately below the one you are quoting here has a link to the official position and definition they use. They do list extraordinary exceptions but your claims do not meet any of those exceptions.

    And a sleazy lawyer that offered such hearsay in a California court would be warned by the judge and the testimony struck. If he persisted then he would be cited with contempt.

    Dude, the fact that you want to believe something that is not so does not make it so.

    ETA:
    Oh yeah, while the kind of 'testimony' you want to offer would not even be allowed in a California court because it is all hearsay, the first hand testimony of those claiming to have been abducted by anal probing aliens would be allowed and would be considered... It may be decided by the jury that the witness was delusional but the testimony would be heard.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; Yesterday at 10:29 PM.

  6. Top | #416
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,713
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by remez View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    You are unquestionably assuming your conclusion is true and working backward from there.

    This is no one's first rodeo, remez.
    Well it seems to be your first rodeo.


    Jesus, it just never ends.

    Because your statement is very very questionable in the face of the abductive argument I provided.
    No it isn't and you provided no abductive argument. You just refuse to concede that you have always just assumed a god exists and worked backwards from there.

    Why you keep doing this is a mystery. To you. Not to any of us. We know why. We have told you why. Yet you keep denying it's what you're doing. Why? What's the point?

    You can't stand the fact that your beliefs aren't justifiable. Welcome to religious "faith," aka belief in spite of the evidence against.

    Before you respond…..let me give it a shot.
    Ok, let's go to your rodeo. Again.

    I do not deny I have a prior reasonable belief that God exists
    You have no such thing. You have a belief that one exists. There is nothing "reasonable" about it nor can there be nor should there be. That's what faith is all about.

    and that belief is not presumptuous either, for I have provided my reasoning supporting that belief here in this thread more than once.


    It is there for you to challenge.
    I have, repeatedly and conclusively destroyed it. You just refuse--obstinately, petulantly--to concede that fact. So here we go again.

    The conclusion of my abductive argument is dependent upon the truth of the premises and the abductive reasoning that leads to the conclusion.
    Stop using the word "abductive." It's not impressing anyone and you're not using it properly to begin with. "Magic is real" cannot ever possibly be either the simplest nor the most likely explanation for any observation, let alone the idea that a magical, omnicapable multi-dimensional "Supreme Being" that blinked the universe into existence be either "simplest" or "most likely," let alone that such a being trifurcated into flesh in order to kill himself as a necessary sacrifice to himself in order to save us all from his wrath and to show the world this is true, he only allegedly showed a few people and then nonsensically (i.e., by flying off into outer space).

    No overt presumptions anywhere. Unless…….you fooled yourself here………….and………..
    Are you ever going to get to it?

    You are reasoning...
    *YAWN*

    Well….
    Think carefully about that this time.
    Uh huh. ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GET TO IT?

    That faulty reasoning would eliminate all argument for anything. The scientific search for anything. Because the minute you try to argue for anything, you must first have the thing in mind that you are arguing for,
    AIRN'T!

    Wrong. It's not about having something "in mind" it's about you have ALREADY CONCLUDED THAT A GOD EXISTS. You don't simply have it in mind; you are 100% a believer that a God exists. You are then working backward from that conclusion to your premises, which is not permissible.

    You are NOT proving that a god exists, or, in this case, proving that a divine resurrection from the dead happened. You are ASSUMING ONE HAPPENED (because your beliefs require it) and now desperately trying to work backwards from that preconceived conclusion to try and make your premises fit in a "reasonable" manner, which is the most ludicrous of all of this nonsense.

    Because, again, there can be nothing "reasonable" (or "simple" or "most likely") about a magical being using magic to resurrect himself/any human being from the dead. Full stop.

    It doesnt' matter how many times you try to spin it, there is no such thing as magic. At best--at the very very very very very best--is that a perfectly natural alien being from a much more advanced culture than ours just happened to be passing by in their ship and broke the prime directive.

    THAT is far more reasonable than the notion that there is a magical omnicapable sky daddy that blinked the universe into existence by will alone because he was, what, lonely? And wanted to create quadrillions of planets, but only ONE with creatures on it, and then among those billions of creatures, only one species that could even possibly conceive of him and then only to blindly worship and obey his every ineffable order, no matter how insane.

    It's NEVER going to be the "most likley explanation." Ever.

    We believed that the Higg's Boson existed and had reasons to look for it.
    False. We could not explain why our model of the physical world was off. The math kept giving us results that shouldn't be. So it was theorized that we were missing some component in our calculations. Iow, it was something there that we missed.

    YOU are not thoerizing any like missing component in regard to a story about a man/god that is resurrected from the dead as the most likely explanation for the mythology that sprang up around him.

    The tomb was open and the body gone. MOST LIKELY OR SIMPLEST EXPLANATION CAN NEVER BE: divinely resurrected from the dead.

    Never. That can never ever ever be the simplest or most likely explanation for that myth. So, either you do not understand what "simple" (or "most likely" or "reasonable") means, OR you are simply preconceiving a pet conclusion to be true and working backwards.

    Which is it?

    Were those looking for it presumptuous?
    Just, for the love of your god, please stfu.

    You have failed. Again. As you always will. Because you--an adult, presumably--believe in Santa Claus.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; Yesterday at 11:38 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Fine Tuning
    By Cheerful Charlie in forum General Religion
    Replies: 168
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 09:33 AM
  2. fine tuning argument
    By BH in forum Existence of God(s)
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 05-06-2018, 05:45 PM
  3. How would you debate this argument
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 10:05 PM
  5. The argument for eating dog
    By Potoooooooo in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-26-2014, 07:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •