I didn’t say it was a knockdown argument for the existence of god, it’s obviously based on debatable premises, but I’d at least acknowledge them as legitimately debatable, and on that basis I’d consider it valid as an argument.
I’ve no interest in starting a long argument about the exact definition of a “God” or the supernatural. Personally, I find a scenario in which an entity external to this reality brings it into existence for purpose or purposes unknown, whilst retaining the capacity to influence it beyond its own internally consistent rule set, to meet my own expectation of a “God like entity”, like I said, YMMV
I don’t believe in the existence of a god, I just don’t feel able to reject the possibility entirely. I’m not going to be offended if you disagree with me on that, but if I’m unwilling to personally reject the possibility of a god completely, it’d be pretty hypocritical to look down on others solely on the basis that they are a theist.
I’m not willing to ENTIRELY reject the hypothesis that George Washington was a space alien. And yet, I would have no trouble looking down on anyone who believed such a thing without evidence.
The universe exists, given that this is the case, and that I am pretty sure we lack any definitive explanation as to why it exists, I am unwilling to arbitrarily reject almost every class of solution in which it was deliberately created.
“Object exists, I am unable to reject the possibility that it may have been created deliberately” seems to me to be a more intrinsically defensible position than “George Washington was a space alien, because I can’t prove that he wasn’t”
An argument for what? It’s not an argument at all. It doesn’t argue. It just hypothesizes. Hypothesis is not argument. They are two different things. If I hypothesize that the Elven land of Valinor might exist, I have not made an argument for its existence.
But your “explanation” only raises a new question: Who created the creator? You’ve added complexity without answering anything.
The proposition that George Washington was a space alien is far more defensible. It doesn’t violate the laws of physics or create an infinite regression. It’s just wildly bizarre.
Any “creator” hypothesis regressive. It does not explain the universe because you now need to explain the creator. It is not arbitrary or unreasonable to simply make this factual observation.
Ok, it’s an article about a hypothesis, it does contain a logical statement that would seem to qualify as an argument by the definitions that I could find.
Maybe I should have been more specific. but I’m not sure how this really undermines my point, at least as I intended to make it.
The above, however you think it should be defined, is based on propositions that I consider valid enough to avoid rejecting entirely, and would seem to imply the possible existence of something that would meet my personal definition of a “god like entity”.
On that basis and on the basis of my unwillingness to absolutely reject the possibility of any other arguments or hypotheses that involve the deliberate creation of the universe I am unwilling to consider myself obliged to be mean to people, just because they believe in a god. You are free to disagree with that as you feel fit.
But I didn’t present the above as evidence of the existence of a creator, I was asked to give a single example of what I’d consider a logically constructed argument compatible with that. And I’d suggest that said argument can’t be rejected on the basis of requiring an infinite regression, because it clearly doesn’t unless you strictly define a god as the original creation of everything.
I notice that you are avoiding addressing my actual argument, which is simply that I am unwilling to reject possible explanations for the creation of this universe that involves deliberate creation, without a reason to do so. I don’t see why that should be wildly controversial.
But your argument for a “creator” is not logically constructed (it’s merely a hypothesis with no logic or evidence to support it) and doesn’t explain anything.
I’m not playing “dictionary tennis” with you here but here is a dictionary definition of “proof”
so I’m sure you are able to see why my use of the word was correct.
If you like you can feel free to insert “the strongest claims” or the “the best evidence” where I have used “proof”, it changes nothing other giving you an opportunity to dodge the more important issue of the claim/evidence/proof being weak.
I’m not arguing for a “creator” I’m arguing that I don’t feel able to entirely reject the possibility of a “creator”.
If you don’t agree that the previously presented hypothesis is in any way valid in suggesting the possibility of said " creator" then fine, but I am not basing my position on that hypothesis either.
Neither do most atheists. I don’t reject the *possibility *of a creator. But I also don’t reject the *possibility *that I’m current in the middle of a fever dream. Or the *possibility *that goldfish are secretly sentient. Or the the *possibility *that Oreo cookies are made from unicorn meat.
In fact, I assume that EVERYTHING I know is provisional. It’s the best explanation I have at the moment for the facts at hand, but is subject to amendment to accommodate new information in the future.
So, when I say “There is no God” I mean it the same way I mean “There’s not a carnival in the parking lot right now.” I can’t see a carnival, I can’t hear a carnival, I have no evidence of a carnival … and yet there’s a tiny, tiny chance I *might *be mistaken. If you were to ask me if there was a carnival in the parking lot, I’d say “No, of course not.” If you showed me some hard evidence otherwise, I might reconsider. But barring any such evidence, my lack of *absolute *knoweldge about what’s going on in the parking lot won’t prevent me from making a well-supported claim about what is very likelygoing on in the parking lot.
It is difficult to demonstrate that I can refute arguments if you don’t give me any. Obviously I’d be open to accusations of creating strawmen if I stated an argument and refuted it. When you actually have something to contribute, let us know.
“I can hit any pitch you throw at me.”
“Prove it.”
“Ok, throw your best pitch.”
“No, you made a claim, let’s see you back it up.”
“Throw the ball and I’ll back it up.”
“I don’t have to throw the ball, you’re the one who made the claim. Let’s see you prove it.”
“Throw me a pitch and I’ll prove it.”
“No, you have to independently demonstrate every possible pitch I could theoretically throw and show there is no possible pitch you can’t hit.”
“Just throw the goddamn ball, would you.”
I asked about a specific claim that Voyager made.
You did not address Voyager’s claim and, instead, you presented a list of proofs.
This indicated that you don’t understand the difference between a claim and a proof. (And you missed the point about Voyager’s claim.)
Then you present a dictionary definition that doesn’t mention “claim”.
So I ask about C (claim).
You present P (proof).
I say C is not the same as P.
You offer a definition of P that doesn’t mention C.
Yup, that’s logical.
Just as logical as saying that returning any serve by anyone is the same as returning any serve by me.
