Sunday, May 21, 2017

Another Acrimonious dialogue with atheist


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/05/15/repost-25-questions-theists/#disqus_thread



Avatar
Joe Hinman  Jim Jones • a day ago
This is about general theism not Christian theism. you are taking us off topic, why do you have to derail every discussion with this pathetic anti-intellectual propaganda? Obsessed with that topic.

my answer to the questions

http://metacrock.blogspot.c...
 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
 • a day ago

 Question:
Given that the universe has a finite age, why did the universe begin with time rather than in time?
This is actually an interesting physics question. Asking a theist to answer it is beyond their "magisteria", as Stephen Jay Gould would say.
Kevin K
How do souls interact with physical matter? Do you have any answer that is not tantamount to “I don’t know?”
In particular, how would you draw the appropriate Feynman diagram that demonstrates the soul's interactions with matter? It's actually this question that should, in an honest observer, lead to the conclusion that souls do not and cannot exist. If souls existed, then by definition they must interact with normal matter (ie, humans). If they do interact with humans, then they would not only be detectable, they would already have been detected given our current level of knowledge of physics. There's just no way around this. The existence of "supernatural" stuff is a non-sequitur here -- if it interacts with matter, it's detectable by our current methods. Saying "physics is incomplete" is also not the correct answer (or dodge) -- it's more-than complete enough to answer this question.
2  •Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Joe Hinman to  Kevin K • a day ago
It is cosmologists question but a theist can ea cosmologist, I know what you mean. not an answer a theist would give qua theist.
 •Edit•Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Kevin K  speaking to Joe Hinman • a day ago
If there is a difference in the answer a cosmologist/theist would give compared with a cosmologist/non-theist, that might make for an interesting discussion.

As far as I'm aware, Laplace kicked god out of the cosmos, and no scientist has successfully reinserted him back in. Hoyle tried and failed. Polkinghorne, as far as I know, has only made assertions as a theist, not as a physicist. In other words, words but no math or empirical data to back him up.
 •Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Joe Hinman  Kevin K • 16 hours ago
Historians weather Laplace even uttered his famous S :I have no need." Your version of angry little wet hen atheism is anti intellectual, reactionary, and boring.

You have hit upon the fallacy (by default) of Lowder;s questions, You can talk about the physical workings of the empirical end of the universe forever and not mention God because it's created to run on it's own. Then of course you can play the games of reductionist designed to keep God hidden.

That doesn't mean you can leave God out if you want to go beyond the surface. Science doesn't go beyond the surface (not it's job) so of course science appears not to need God. The universe is made to look neutral.


Halbe  to Joe Hinman • 11 hours ago
Yes, you keep saying that: "God is the foundation of reality", "God cannot be subject to falsification", "God is the basis of all truth, and therefore, cannot be the object of questioning about truth" etc. etc.

So, what you are basically saying is: The null hypothesis is that God is the foundation of reality and this hypothesis is by definition not falsifiable, so, checkmate atheists!

Let me say this gently: we atheists are not all that impressed with that line of reasoning. To me it is no more than a cop out: you just have to believe ("a priori religious"), and once you believe it all becomes clear. Well, duh!
2  •Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Joe Hinman  Halbe • 7 hours ago
wrong. you have to use other means than direct empirical evidence. although we use empirical evidence but it;snot direct evidence it;s evidence of The  co determinate,

so we place the bar at the level of warrant rather than proof, We can warrant belief through a variety of means but not direct empirical, Like for example logic,

Atheists use the same ideas when it suites them,string theory, multiverse,alternate universe, are no more empirical than God, nor are they falsifiable,



Halbe  Joe Hinman • 6 hours ago
Religious belief is not warranted at all; it is a 'pre-existing condition' ("a priori religious"), almost always instilled through indoctrination at a young age. Your "warranting" is just post-hoc reasoning to prop up an unsubstantiated belief.

Atheists do not use the same ideas. String theory, multiverse etc. are accepted as interesting theoretical frameworks for explaining certain aspects of reality that science cannot explain yet. Scientists (atheist or not) do not "believe" these frameworks; they are very busy to derive testable and falsifiable hypotheses from these frameworks in order to be able to either falsify them or elevate them to the status of scientific theory. I.e. directly the opposite of what theists do with their beliefs (including you; you just declare it true but unfalsifiable by definition).



Joe Hinman  Halbe • 5 hours ago
Religious belief is not warranted at all; it is a 'pre-existing condition' ("a priori religious"), almost always instilled through indoctrination at a young age. Your "warranting" is just post-hoc reasoning to prop up an unsubstantiated belief.

that is just BS stereotype you have no data to back it up you not one study that quantities how many conversions are just indoctrination, But that has nothing to do with warrant anyway,

"Atheists do not use the same ideas. String theory, multiverse etc. are accepted as interesting theoretical frameworks for explaining certain aspects of reality that science cannot explain yet."

that does not make them empirically demonstrate,I can say the very something about my God arguments,

Scientist (atheist or not) do not "believe" these frameworks; they are very busy to derive testable and falsifiable hypotheses from these frameworks in order to be able to either falsify them or elevate them to the status of scientific theory. I.e. directly the opposite of what theists do with their beliefs (including you; you just declare it true but

I think it;s pretty obvious most atheists actually do believe them and whirl scientists don't; worship the theories as believers do 'God that has nothing to do with the argumnet,they still accept the Logic it is the same logic




Avatar
Halbe  Joe Hinman • 5 hours ago
You are now going very deep into the rabbit hole of irrational apologetics; so far that I am starting to question your honesty. Do you really want to dispute the fact that religion is primarily propagated through childhood indoctrination? Really!? Do you really want to equate the scientific work on new theoretical frameworks with your apologetics? Really!? If your answers to these questions is yes, then you're either stupid or dishonest.



Joe Hinman  Halbe • 5 hours ago

You are now going very deep into the rabbit hole of irrational apologetics;

so either you are not interested in a serious discussion or you don't know a good answer from a stpudoneeitherY ido

so far that I am starting to question your honesty.

I doubt your honesty it;s pretty clear you want a bully rush from mocking religious people, you dom't care about truth and you not willing to listen,


Do you really want to dispute the fact that religion is primarily propagated through childhood indoctrination?
of course I do you moron 

you do not want answers,you are wasting my time,


busterggi  Joe Hinman • 4 hours ago
We all know the difference between a good answer and a stupid one, we just can't get a good one from you.

You're just a low-grade apologist who like to pull his opinions from his ass and pretend they are facts.

200 studies from peer reviewed academe journals that;s just from my ass, but his little bigoted studiedly fact, "your just alow rade apologiost" that;s reallyvajoverture todiscussion


Joe Hinman  busterggi • a few seconds ago
bull shit, you mean good answer = support your view bad answer goatskin your view/

you below your brains out about empirical proof. I have 200 studies you have none yet you still think your bigoted hatred of God is fact and my studies are my opi





No comments: