How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #28

This is becoming rather common: Theists running from hard questions. They only like the ones they read in Josh McDowell screeds.

What question am I running from by pointing out a logical fallacy?


And by the way----I don't read anything by Josh McDowell. That would be limited to a subset of Christian fundamentalists and in no way representative of theists by and large.

Sweeping Generalization fallacy:

"An argument is constructed in which a simplistic general rule is assumed to be more widely true, therefore an exception is ignored."
https://firmitas.org/logic-generalization.php

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #29

You are (like every darn theist I have ever debated) ignoring the materialist default, which is 'there is no good evidence of a god in the working of anything that we know about'.

I didn't ignore the materialist default. I pointed out that there isn't a materialist fault since nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence, as it would make the argument circular.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #28

This is becoming rather common: Theists running from hard questions. They only like the ones they read in Josh McDowell screeds.

What question am I running from by pointing out a logical fallacy?


And by the way----I don't read anything by Josh McDowell. That would be limited to a subset of Christian fundamentalists and in no way representative of theists by and large.

Sweeping Generalization fallacy:

"An argument is constructed in which a simplistic general rule is assumed to be more widely true, therefore an exception is ignored."
https://firmitas.org/logic-generalization.php

I'm sure you have a swath of logical arguments to support your belief in your personally invented God that someone might be interested to hear never.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #29

You are (like every darn theist I have ever debated) ignoring the materialist default, which is 'there is no good evidence of a god in the working of anything that we know about'.

I didn't ignore the materialist default. I pointed out that there isn't a materialist fault since nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence, as it would make the argument circular.

That isn't the argument. It is one of those slogans that I mentioned but have no relation to conditions or parameters that are not known. It doesn't in the slightest affect the workings of things without a god being involved. Thus the origins of the material whatever they are - have nothing to support a god claim though appeal to cosmic origins. The default of a supposed expected explanation would be 'natural, not through a cosmic intelligence.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #29

You are (like every darn theist I have ever debated) ignoring the materialist default, which is 'there is no good evidence of a god in the working of anything that we know about'.

I didn't ignore the materialist default. I pointed out that there isn't a materialist fault since nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence, as it would make the argument circular.

That isn't the argument. It is one of those slogans that I mentioned but have no relation to conditions or parameters that are not known. It doesn't in the slightest affect the workings of things without a god being involved. Thus the origins of the material whatever they are - have nothing to support a god claim though appeal to cosmic origins. The default of a supposed expected explanation would be 'natural, not through a cosmic intelligence.

Transponder, you're not getting the argument!

1. Material exists
2. "nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence"
3. Therefore, God.

That's rock solid. Who could possibly argue against that!

[boatsnguitars]

This is becoming rather common: Theists running from hard questions. They only like the ones they read in Josh McDowell screeds.

I often see the same old arguments lifted from the old 'fifty atheists-stumpers' books. It was especially fun (on my other piano) when I debated the Flood and Ark and I'd see the stuff from Woodmorappe or others, like how many species you could get in a line of cattle trucks. Discussion of how many species you'd loose after a year on the Ark, or of feeding and tending them, plus of course the hints that cattle, sheep, ravens doves indicated that the 'kinds' were more like present species than hypothetical Baryma, genetic problems and why the carnivores didn't eat evey other crtitter in the first few weeks and the apologist books were not about answering all the problems but about convincing the believer there were no problems. So they had to make it up themselves and I could see them longing to reach for God's magic wand, which is an unwritten rule - no miracles... just a few small ones.

The thing that annoys me is that many of these Theists will try to argue using "logic and science" to "explain" the Flood, or some other mythological story. They will run you through the gauntlet and when you final prove to them it's not scientifically or logically possible they pull out the Trump Card: "Are you saying the God who could Create the Universe couldn't feed the animals on the Ark?!?! My God can do anything!!!"

So why all the silly pseudo-scientific red herring?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #33

I'm sure you have a swath of logical arguments to support your belief in your personally invented God that someone might be interested to hear never.

I didn't personally invent the fallacies I've been pointing out.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #34

That isn't the argument. It is one of those slogans that I mentioned but have no relation to conditions or parameters that are not known. It doesn't in the slightest affect the workings of things without a god being involved.

It doesn't in the slightest affect the assumption of the workings of things without a god being involved, at least.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #35

Transponder, you're not getting the argument!

1. Material exists
2. "nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence"
3. Therefore, God.

boatsnguitars, you're not getting the argument.

1. Material exists
2. Nothing material can be invoked to account for material existence
3. Therefore, "Of course, there is no God" is a fallacy.

[Athetotheist]

This is becoming rather common: Theists running from hard questions. They only like the ones they read in Josh McDowell screeds.

I often see the same old arguments lifted from the old 'fifty atheists-stumpers' books. It was especially fun (on my other piano) when I debated the Flood and Ark and I'd see the stuff from Woodmorappe or others, like how many species you could get in a line of cattle trucks. Discussion of how many species you'd loose after a year on the Ark, or of feeding and tending them, plus of course the hints that cattle, sheep, ravens doves indicated that the 'kinds' were more like present species than hypothetical Baryma, genetic problems and why the carnivores didn't eat evey other crtitter in the first few weeks and the apologist books were not about answering all the problems but about convincing the believer there were no problems. So they had to make it up themselves and I could see them longing to reach for God's magic wand, which is an unwritten rule - no miracles... just a few small ones.

The thing that annoys me is that many of these Theists will try to argue using "logic and science" to "explain" the Flood, or some other mythological story. They will run you through the gauntlet and when you final prove to them it's not scientifically or logically possible they pull out the Trump Card: "Are you saying the God who could Create the Universe couldn't feed the animals on the Ark?!?! My God can do anything!!!"

So why all the silly pseudo-scientific red herring?

I haven't said any silly, pseudo-scientific thing about Noah's Ark. So whose red herring is that?