Are you a presuppositionalist? Do you support the TAG?
I’d say that this is false, but irrelevant to our discussion at hand. I don’t want to open that bag of worms until the one you’ve already opened is sufficiently dealt with. As it is, I’m a little tired of pointing out the worms that are already on the table, so-to-speak, only to have you ignore them.
I’m not sure how you determine the first part, so I’ll ask you to elaborate.
As to if God were unknowable, if that were the case, then you couldn’t say anything about his existence. How exactly would you calculate the existence of something that you have no data on or no idea of what data would look like? I think you are equivocating on the term unknowable here.
This is not a ‘faith’ proposition. To accept that everything can be accounted for by naturalistic explanations is to accept it based on reasons, models, and evidence. The idea that there is nothing outside of the natural would need to be further defined in order to have any comment on whether or not it should be regarded as rational to hold.
It is not a hypothesis, since a hypothesis is meant to explain phenomenon and facts. Positing an ‘intelligent designer’ does not explain anything. Further, as has been pointed out repeatedly, what we can figure out about this ‘intelligent agent’ leads to absurdities.
Hence, it is irrational to accept ‘B’.
Why? Just because you say so, in spite of arguments to the contrary? That isn’t very convincing.
I don’t even know what this means. Please explain.
Here’s what you have:
-
You can multiply entities and posit an ‘absolute time’ and ‘absolute space’ that require no creation in which your intelligent agent can act.
-
Or you can hold to the idea that this intelligent agent acted without time/space on ‘nothing’ to create time/space.
If you hold to 1, you would have just created a further mystery. If that absolute time/space can exist, why can’t our universe? Why can’t this time/space exist? If you say it can, then parsimony favors rejecting 1.
If you hold to 2, you hold to a contradictory mess of ideas that are incoherent.
I’m sorry that this upsets you, but you’ll have to do more then baselessly assert that an intelligent creator could create in light of this in order to be convincing.
This is flatly false. Block time does not require an uncaused first cause.
So we can reject ‘1’.
This is flatly false, again. A first cause, is the first event. There is no ‘before’, so there is no way it could be ‘caused’. It is not outside of time, it is the first moment of time.
If something is ‘uncaused’ then it cannot have a causal agent.
So we can reject the notion that an intelligent agent had anything to do with this first cause.
I don’t need evidence, since it is the most coherent explanation of what we experience. That alone makes it the most rational choice to hold.
Whereas the idea you put forth is incoherent and cannot be rationally held since it is actually unclear what you are positing!
Nonsense - these ‘thoughts’ are coherent, which is why it is rational to hold to them. The concept that you’ve put forth isn’t.
Which is why rational people should reject it.
Actually they are, since I’ve repeatedly pointed out (and you’ve repeatedly ignored) that they are coherent whereas an ‘intelligent agent’ is not.
You keep ignoring that the option you are putting forth is incoherent, that is why we can take it off the table.
If you want it on the table as an explanation then you have to make it coherent!
Again, it doesn’t matter - the multi-verse model is still more rational to hold to then the ‘intelligent designer’ model, since it has some theoretical framework and actually attempts to explain the phenomenon. It is not flatly incoherent as the intelligent design model is.
Yes, which are still vastly more rational to hold to as opposed to the idea that the earth was headed for a radical transformation into candyland.
Do you get that? Even though that model turned out to be wrong (the ice age), it was still more rational to hold to it, since it could have been correct.
The candy land model (ie, God did it) could never have been correct since it is ‘magic’ and incoherent (technically it’s more coherent then the God model, but I digress).
I don’t know how you would define ‘belief’, so I don’t want you to equivocate. When I speak of believe, I speak of a rational appraisal of the facts.
As in, ‘makes sense’, able to be understood.
This is nonsense, as I’ve repeatedly shown.
Please tell us how it is coherent to hold to a contradiction? The idea that a creator could create time/space requires time/space. The idea that this creator did not have either of these things, but created them is a contradiction (since they would be necessary for the creation).
This is funny - you accept this, yet you seem to think that block time, which doesn’t need something coming from nothing, is somehow not as rational as a creator who would presumably create something from nothing??
You don’t get it - I’m not saying that models are evidence. Some of the models have evidence, some don’t. Some have facts that seem to refute their positions, others do not.
All of these are more rational to accept then the idea you are putting forth. PLEASE understand that - even if you don’t agree with it.
Nonsense - I’ve repeatedly shown that what you are putting forth is simply nonsense. It’s incoherent.
All you can do is assert that we should accept that God is coherent and on the table. That might be good enough for church, but it’s not good enough for reasonable people.
If you want God on the table, then present a coherent explanation of God’s creation.
This is hypocritical - your position CAN’T even be tested. It DOESN’T even make sense, yet you accept it.
So why the double standard?
I’m going to give you one last chance to answer my points and then I’m done, since it will be apparent that you aren’t interested in demonstrating your point of view is rational. You are simply interested in preaching. I have no interest in accepting your irrational, incoherent dogma.