Jeff Foley wrote: Let us keep it simple, then: prove or disprove the necessity of at lease one "being" which has the power of being "in and of" itself (aseity). All that exists is the result of this/these "being(s)." As a scientist and philosopher, you should be familiar with the proposition: Ex nihilo, nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes.) I am using the proposition as a postulate; at least one "being" must "be" (has aseity.) Either something must have aseity, or things pop into existence from "thin air." Let us call this/these being(s) God. Should I assume that you do not believe in God, and instead you believe that all that exists came from "thin air"? Articulett responds:
Are you postulating that a magic man made of nothing who existed always poofed matter and everything else into existence out of nothing before there was time to "cause" anything? Do you think THAT is a coherent answer to universe origins or something? Do you even have a coherent explanation for universe origins? Do you think that it's either your magical answer or that everything exists came from "thin air"? In your mind, if you can negate your straw man, does that make you feel like your magical explanation "wins"? Congratulations-- your indoctrinators have made you officially stupid! Go look up the term: "false dichotomy".The debate started here. I also responded
You sound utterly insane to me, so I'm not sure why I keep responding. I guess I hope you are lucky enough to look back and see how insane you sound to some future more rational version of yourself-- or maybe that others can avoid have their brain scrambled the ways yours has been.
I get my science from scientists... Krauss for universe origins (though Hawking and Stenger are excellent too) --not those who imagine themselves saved for what they believe (or damned for doubt). I recommended that everyone interested in the truth do the same. Moreover, unlike theists, when I don't know something I don't pretend that "proves" my magical explanation is a real answer-- I just say "I don't know". I've found that when scientists don't know an answer-- that those gurus positing magical answers don't know either-- they just imagine they do-- exactly like those who thought Zeus was sending lightening and that demons were causing illness and that witches were real-- exactly like all believers in myths past. Humans make up answers because they are uncomfortable not knowing; it makes them feel more in control. But real truths can be tested and we can find out more; we don't need word games and the manipulations used by con artists and "confirmation bias" (another term you ought to look up). Answers involving invisible immaterial magic men are not real or useful answers for anyone interested in what is true-- like scientists. They are only answers for children and those who think like them because indoctrination has muddled their thinking. Magic answers are for those who think some bogeyman might get them if they don't have faith or those who think "faith" (in the right magic story) is a salvation-winning virtue.
I don't need to prove or disprove anything to reject all magical explanations and supernatural suppositions just like you don't need to know where missing children are to reject the idea that aliens are eating them. (Read that last sentence over and over until you understand it.) That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence; you do it all the time-- you just aren't comfortable when others do it to your sacred beliefs.
Do you ever ask yourself why you need word games and manipulations to get yourself and others to believe in your god? I'd suggest that it's because there is no real evidence... that's why scientists aren't testing and refining information on the subject. There's nothing there but semantics-- despite eons of humans believing in all sorts of magic, there's not an iota of evidence that any immaterial beings exist any more than any immaterial trees or rocks exist-- not even the universe creating being that you imagine you've reasoned your way into believing in!Those positing such entities don't really seem to have a clue as to what exactly they are talking about-- they just feel like it's good to "believe" and to infect others with the mind virus. But god explanations are no more scientific than demon explanations. .
So what is your goal? Are you trying to convince others here that your supernatural beliefs are worthy of respect or are you trying to convince yourself? Why do you care that people don't share your supernatural beliefs? Don't you trust that any real gods can handle the situation if they exist?
If you are trying to engage in an intelligent conversation with scientific types, your hypothesis ought to be clear; it ought to explain our observations better than the current hypothesis, and it should be falsifiable-- we'd have to have a way to show we were wrong if we were wrong. Moreover, it should be able to predict new evidence-- like scientific theories. Also, you should try to stay on topic and avoid asserting magical beliefs or straw man suppositions as though they were facts (but I'm sure this flies right over your head.) Any gooftard can say, "science can't explain it (to my satisfaction) therefore my woo* is true!" A real explanation should not be able to be used just as well by people who believe in different magic (say a matrix scenario) than you do.
Btw-- your "argument" (straw man) is old... it only works on people like you... people trying to look for a rational reason to keep the faith... it doesn't work on real scientists nor those interested in the truth. I know it's new and deep and groovy to you, but to everyone here, it's old WLC apologetic tripe. It can be used just as easily by those who believe conflicting magical beliefs.
You also need to work on give and take... respond to what people write here or go to a "woo" blog where crazy preaching is the norm. Think of your goals. Think of how you might respond if a Scientologist tried to use a similar "argument" on you.
Before it's too late.
I wonder if Jeff is one of those theists who confuse evolution with cosmological origins...
(I can't tell if religion MAKES people stupid or if less intelligent people are more susceptible to indoctrination. )