Counterfeits.

[Tassman]

If you define universe to mean everything that exists. Uncaused existence would have to be part of the universe the universe being made up of everything uncaused and caused.

The universe is defined as everything that exists; this is all that need be said.

[Roy]

If God's identity is [uncaused] Existence.

"If". There is no reason to make that association other than that it allows you to skip over the hole in your apologetics.

To say God dos not exist is no different [except in your denial] than saying Existence does not exist.

You can't even follow your own argument - you missed out the 'uncaused'.

As apparently is the concept of plurality.

Does the fallacy have a name?

Which of the multiple fallacies you perpetrated are you asking about?

[Sparko]

If he doesn't grant requests, what's the point in praying? Anytime God fails to come through you simply right it off as "he can do what he wants" and so any result are consistent with his existence.

The point of praying is to align YOUR will to God's, not God's will to yours.

[Sparko]

I think you're putting words in his mouth.

He was making the distinction between personal experiences (revelations) such as yours, and empirical evidence. The former is subjective testimony that while no doubt sincere, can not be subjected to verification by others to verify what you interpret the experience to be. And he's correct when he stated there is no physical evidence -- there isn't.

FYI: most people here have made up their minds, and are simply exchanging beliefs.

I gave him every opportunity to give me an example of what evidence he would accept that would convince him that God exists. He flatly denied that any such evidence could exist. His reason? Because God doesn't exist. completely circular. And I specifically said what would convince HIM, not what would convince others. And I never said physical evidence and neither did he. We were talking about "good evidence" - and discussing things like eye witnesses. He rejected every type of evidence so I asked him what evidence would convince him? God appearing to him and proving himself directly to him? Nope. that wasn't good enough. He eventually admitted that NOTHING would be good enough.

[Sparko]

He usually does. It's his MO in lieu of substantive argument.

Oh the irony. From the guy who invents strawman arguments for his opponents and then proceeds to insist that is what people are actually arguing despite complete denials by them.

Of course I was making the distinction between subjective experiences and empirical evidence, as is obvious to you and everyone else without a religious agenda.

What empirical evidence for God would you accept, Tassman? You don't think him appearing to you and doing tricks for you is empirical enough. So again, what evidence would you accept that would convince you that God exists? Last chance.

[Tassman]

The point of praying is to align YOUR will to God's, not God's will to yours.

You can only "align YOUR will to God's" if God exists and this has not been established. You're begging the question.

[Tassman]

Oh the irony. From the guy who invents strawman arguments for his opponents and then proceeds to insist that is what people are actually arguing despite complete denials by them.

What empirical evidence for God would you accept, Tassman? You don't think him appearing to you and doing tricks for you is empirical enough. So again, what evidence would you accept that would convince you that God exists? Last chance.

“God exists” is YOUR hypothesis, not mine. It is up to you to prove his existence not me. If you have evidence supporting such a hypothesis, then present it. As far as I’m concerned god-did-it is a failed hypothesis.

[Yttrium]

Tassman's standards do seem to be a bit high. In science, one doesn't expect theories to be proven. We can accept a scientific theory without complete proof. I wouldn't need someone to prove the existence of God in order for me to accept the existence of God. Granted, coming up with a scientific theory concerning the existence of God is problematic. However, a preponderance of the evidence would sway me sufficiently. I can think of a number of things that could help with that, including a visit by God or angels.

[Tassman]

Tassman's standards do seem to be a bit high. In science, one doesn't expect theories to be proven. We can accept a scientific theory without complete proof. I wouldn't need someone to prove the existence of God in order for me to accept the existence of God. Granted, coming up with a scientific theory concerning the existence of God is problematic.

“Proof” was the word used by Sparko. In science one empirically verifies the evidence with multiple testing until one can accept the findings as established beyond reasonable doubt. There is no substantive evidence supporting the god hypothesis, hence there is nothing to be tested.

However, a preponderance of the evidence would sway me sufficiently. I can think of a number of things that could help with that, including a visit by God or angels.

Such apparitions may well be delusional, how would you know the difference?

[Yttrium]

Such apparitions may well be delusional, how would you know the difference?

I'd be delusional. I wouldn't care.

[Tassman]

I'd be delusional. I wouldn't care.

OK, enjoy!!!

[Roy]

Tassman's standards do seem to be a bit high. In science, one doesn't expect theories to be proven.

True - but we do expect the proposers to (I) provide evidence for them, and (ii) consider ways in which they might be disproven.

[Sparko]

What empirical evidence for God would you accept, Tassman? You don't think him appearing to you and doing tricks for you is empirical enough. So again, what evidence would you accept that would convince you that God exists? Last chance.

“God exists” is YOUR hypothesis, not mine. It is up to you to prove his existence not me. If you have evidence supporting such a hypothesis, then present it. As far as I’m concerned god-did-it is a failed hypothesis.

Foot-in-Mouth-Disease.jpg

You just can't help sticking your foot in your mouth, can you?


Once again you prove my statement that you are close-minded and will not accept any evidence because you don't believe there can be any because God doesn't exist. Your previous statement ("Of course I was making the distinction between subjective experiences and empirical evidence, as is obvious to you and everyone else without a religious agenda. ") is proven to be false. You don't care if the evidence is personal, subjective, or empirical, you will reject it regardless.

[Sparko]

True - but we do expect the proposers to (I) provide evidence for them, and (ii) consider ways in which they might be disproven.

I was only asking what evidence he would accept. Not asking him to provide the evidence or to prove God. Just what his standard would be and an example. You know like, "I would believe in God if he popped up next to me and turned a rock into a gold brick for me" or something like that. I already asked him if he would believe in God if he appeared to him and he said no, so I then asked what WOULD it take, and he basically said nothing would convince him. Which would include empirical evidence. I then asked him what empirical evidence he would accept and as you can see above, he again said none would. He won't believe anything because he has made up his mind that God can't exist. So any evidence he is given will be rejected.

[Roy]

I was only asking what evidence he would accept. Not asking him to provide the evidence or to prove God. Just what his standard would be and an example. You know like, "I would believe in God if he popped up next to me and turned a rock into a gold brick for me" or something like that. I already asked him if he would believe in God if he appeared to him and he said no, so I then asked what WOULD it take, and he basically said nothing would convince him. Which would include empirical evidence. I then asked him what empirical evidence he would accept and as you can see above, he again said none would. He won't believe anything because he has made up his mind that God can't exist. So any evidence he is given will be rejected.

Yeah, I know. I'm not defending Tassman.