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 TRANSPONDER in post #10

Nah. Because your objections fails to take into consideration the materialist default which makes an explanation that is not a god or other supernatural cause
the logical default until the claim of a divine or supernatural cause is validated. So while 'no God' is untenable as gnostic claim it is perfectly valid - indeed logically mandated - by agnosticism and the burden of proof.

Since material existence cannot be shown to account for its own existence, there is no materialist default.

Like it or not, the assertion in the OP is fallacious.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #10

Nah. Because your objections fails to take into consideration the materialist default which makes an explanation that is not a god or other supernatural cause
the logical default until the claim of a divine or supernatural cause is validated. So while 'no God' is untenable as gnostic claim it is perfectly valid - indeed logically mandated - by agnosticism and the burden of proof.

Since material existence cannot be shown to account for its own existence, there is no materialist default.

Like it or not, the assertion in the OP is fallacious.

How does theism resolve your stated objection or does it? Can immaterial existence be shown to account for its own existence? For that matter, is the concept of immaterial existence coherent? What does it mean for something to exist immaterially?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #10

Nah. Because your objections fails to take into consideration the materialist default which makes an explanation that is not a god or other supernatural cause
the logical default until the claim of a divine or supernatural cause is validated. So while 'no God' is untenable as gnostic claim it is perfectly valid - indeed logically mandated - by agnosticism and the burden of proof.

Since material existence cannot be shown to account for its own existence, there is no materialist default.

Like it or not, the assertion in the OP is fallacious.

Fail - as before since this isn't the first time you tried that fallacy. It is the fallacy of appeal to unk owns with a bit of semantic fiddling to make it sound like it was pointing up a logical contradiction. The logical and evidence -based go -to theory is - however 'existence' happened or even what it is there is not a shred of decent evidence that a god is involved. Therefor, a material/natural explanation is logically mandated even before we know what it is. You argument fails as it failed before.

You have done good work on scripture, but you repeatedly let yourself down on this cosmic origins sophistry presented as logic.Itr isn't even related to the Op which is about personal mental feeling proves God?

Not that it even matters as an intelligent creator is irrelevant when that problem is not a sortagod but organised religion, and the Cosmic Origins argument only leads to Which god? even if it was valid, which it isn't.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #13

Fail - as before since this isn't the first time you tried that fallacy. It is the fallacy of appeal to unk owns with a bit of semantic fiddling to make it sound like it was pointing up a logical contradiction. The logical and evidence -based go -to theory is - however 'existence' happened or even what it is there is not a shred of decent evidence that a god is involved. Therefor, a material/natural explanation is logically mandated even before we know what it is. You argument fails as it failed before.

I haven't been making an argument here. I've just been pointing out the flaws in arguments already made here.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #12

What does it mean for something to exist immaterially?

Ask Lawrence Krauss.

Krauss' way of getting out of explaining the energy which comprises the universe [or of getting out of admitting that he can't explain it] is to add the equal levels of the universe's positive and negative energy to get "zero" and slyly conclude that there's no energy to explain. The problem this runs into is that if the universe isn't made of energy, what is it made of? Having eliminated everything above a measurable level of zero, with what alternative are we left?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #13

Fail - as before since this isn't the first time you tried that fallacy. It is the fallacy of appeal to unk owns with a bit of semantic fiddling to make it sound like it was pointing up a logical contradiction. The logical and evidence -based go -to theory is - however 'existence' happened or even what it is there is not a shred of decent evidence that a god is involved. Therefor, a material/natural explanation is logically mandated even before we know what it is. You argument fails as it failed before.

I haven't been making an argument here. I've just been pointing out the flaws in arguments already made here.

I don't care what you think you've been doing. You don't get to control the discussion. I pick up on a point and flag up the implications and knock - on arguments (which I have seen before) and, just to avoid all doubt, show how the attempt to twit the atheist argument as a fallacy is fallacy

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #12

What does it mean for something to exist immaterially?

Ask Lawrence Krauss.

Krauss' way of getting out of explaining the energy which comprises the universe [or of getting out of admitting that he can't explain it] is to add the equal levels of the universe's positive and negative energy to get "zero" and slyly conclude that there's no energy to explain. The problem this runs into is that if the universe isn't made of energy, what is it made of? Having eliminated everything above a measurable level of zero, with what alternative are we left?

When you say 'If', you invalidate your whole argument. When you can say (with some authority) 'Because'...the universe is made or not of this or that, then you can act as though you have a workable hypothesis. So far all you have is theist appeal to what they think is impossible when we are all still in the dark.

My friendly advice to you is (as i really want you totally rational as you do good work) is to give up being a 'cosmic origins' theist and go back to being an atheist. Leave sortagod belief to those who use faithbased thinking and denialism, as it only leads to fallacy, shiftiness and evasion and you are far better than that.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

Of course, there is no God

Bare Assertion Fallacy:

When a premise is introduced as a conclusion without substantiation.
https://logfall.wordpress.com/bare-assertion-fallacy/

Would it make you feel better - would it sooth your wounded pride - if I said, "There is no God of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism, Bahá'í Faith, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, African Traditional Religions, Native American Religions, Rastafari, Scientology, Wicca, Druidry, Hellenism (Greek), Roman Paganism, Norse Heathenry, Polynesian traditional religions, Maori religion, Australian Aboriginal religions, Sikhism, Jainism, Yazidism. But, sure, let's pretend the Christian God exists...

Yet, all those followers of those religions have believe they have sensed their God. Not Yahweh, but their God.

Hope this makes you feel better. I know it's very personal to you.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #16

I don't care what you think you've been doing. You don't get to control the discussion.

"Control the discussion"? Isn't that a bit melodramatic? All I did was point out a fallacy as exactly what it was. I even provided the definition.

When you say 'If', you invalidate your whole argument.

I was going off of the original assertion to ask an "if/then" question.

My friendly advice to you is (as i really want you totally rational as you do good work) is to give up being a 'cosmic origins' theist and go back to being an atheist. Leave sortagod belief to those who use faithbased thinking and denialism, as it only leads to fallacy, shiftiness and evasion and you are far better than that.

I've never been an atheist, and I hardly see how identifying a fallacy and asking a logical question is in any way driven by denialism, shiftiness or evasion.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1

Of course, there is no God

Bare Assertion Fallacy:

When a premise is introduced as a conclusion without substantiation.
https://logfall.wordpress.com/bare-assertion-fallacy/

Would it make you feel better - would it sooth your wounded pride - if I said, "There is no God of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism, Bahá'í Faith, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Taoism, Confucianism, African Traditional Religions, Native American Religions, Rastafari, Scientology, Wicca, Druidry, Hellenism (Greek), Roman Paganism, Norse Heathenry, Polynesian traditional religions, Maori religion, Australian Aboriginal religions, Sikhism, Jainism, Yazidism. But, sure, let's pretend the Christian God exists...

Yet, all those followers of those religions have believe they have sensed their God. Not Yahweh, but their God.

Hope this makes you feel better. I know it's very personal to you.

Why pretend that the Christian God exists? If you've been paying attention, you'll see that you're the only one who's brought him up.

Look at the length of your quote from me above and the length of your response to it. Are you sure it's my pride that's wounded?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #16

I don't care what you think you've been doing. You don't get to control the discussion.

"

Control the discussion"? Isn't that a bit melodramatic? All I did was point out a fallacy as exactly what it was. I even provided the definition.

No.It is pre -emptive You posted " I haven't been making an argument here. I've just been pointing out the flaws in arguments already made here."

I was not going to let you dictate how or what I should post or why.

When you say 'If', you invalidate your whole argument.

I was going off of the original assertion to ask an "if/then" question.

You posted "The problem this runs into is that if the universe isn't made of energy, what is it made of?" If the universe is (or was/always has been made of energy, then the point is futile. Of course the whole cosmic origins question is under discussion and nobody knows - as I said. Your argument - and please don't think I am so dull as not to see the argument you were making as it is the dismal old 'something from nothing is impossible Unless an Intelligent creator does it - fails as it is based on claiming certain knowledge of conditions we should be agnostic about - the classing faithbased theism fallacy.

My friendly advice to you is (as i really want you totally rational as you do good work) is to give up being a 'cosmic origins' theist and go back to being an atheist. Leave sortagod belief to those who use faithbased thinking and denialism, as it only leads to fallacy, shiftiness and evasion and you are far better than that.

I've never been an atheist, and I hardly see how identifying a fallacy and asking a logical question is in any way driven by denialism, shiftiness or evasion.

Your entire post above was a mess of irrelevance, not -picking, evasion and shiftiness, before we even get to claiming false arguments refute materialist argument you falsely claim are false. And just be quit clear this is not an attack any more than a doctor is making a personal attack when he diagnoses that someone had the clap. Theism is making your arguments irrational when clearly you can do rational posting.

So you were never an atheist? That makes me feel so much better. It is always depressing when an atheist falls into the sortagod (something cannot come from nothing) trap. I assumed your monicker was not misleading us as I tend to assume people are being honest in their messaging until they admit they are not.

However, if you you have progressed thus far (to a non -specific creator) and are, as I gather from your posting, an irreligious Deist, we are buddies and sortagod is academic. It is just that that case for any sortagod is a fallacious and irrational one.