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?

[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.

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?

OK, add the Christian god to the list that we all agree doesn't exist and pick the god that you believe does exist, then keep that in your heart as you address the meat of the topic.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20

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.

Well, Krauss' point is futile.

Of course the whole cosmic origins question is under discussion and nobody knows - as I said.

....which means that "Of course, there is no God" is a Bare Assertion fallacy, as I said.

It is just that that case for any sortagod is a fallacious and irrational one.

nonrational:
"incapable of being validated by reason. For example, in the opinion of most modern philosophers, it is impossible to confirm the proposition that God exists. A nonrational belief is not necessarily irrational."
---American Psychological Association
https://dictionary.apa.org/nonrational

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #21

OK, add the Christian god to the list that we all agree doesn't exist and pick the god that you believe does exist, then keep that in your heart as you address the meat of the topic.

What makes you think that I have to pick a concept of God from the meager list you provide?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #20

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.

Well, Krauss' point is futile.

Of course the whole cosmic origins question is under discussion and nobody knows - as I said.

....which means that "Of course, there is no God" is a Bare Assertion fallacy, as I said.

It is just that that case for any sortagod is a fallacious and irrational one.

nonrational:
"incapable of being validated by reason. For example, in the opinion of most modern philosophers, it is impossible to confirm the proposition that God exists. A nonrational belief is not necessarily irrational."
---American Psychological Association
https://dictionary.apa.org/nonrational

And that " that "Of course, there is no God" is a Bare Assertion fallacy, as I said." is a fail as that is not the claim.The claim is that we can propose hypotheses or just ideas to try to test. The only 'bare assertion fallacy here is the claim there isan intelligent creator that made everything. It's possible, but perhaps not possible, and the other fallacy that otherwise sound sortagoddists make is to argue that 'anything else is impossible' and using various futile memes like: 'nothing can come from nothing' or 'Reality cannot create itself' or 'Infinite regression is impossible' or irrelevancies like the definition of fallacy (1). The inherent fallacy is the Holmes dictum that if anything can be ruled out what remains (Goddunnit) must be the truth.

That is fine when we know all the parameters, but we really don't know them all here, which is why assertions claiming that a god is the best let alone only answer is the fallacious and futile faithbased one.

(1) mind I follow how nonrational can still be not irrational. Rational can relate to what imperfect human perception thinks it sees, like mirages or an apparently flat earth or blue sky or indeed solid material. But on evidence, to say the earth is not flat, the sky is not actually blue and the particles that make up matter is mostly nothing. Apparently nonrational ideas when supported by evidence can be rational. But when not (adequately) supported by evidence, they are indeed irrational. Especially when they are presented in a 'bare assertion fallacy'that a god is the only rational conclusion.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #21

OK, add the Christian god to the list that we all agree doesn't exist and pick the god that you believe does exist, then keep that in your heart as you address the meat of the topic.

What makes you think that I have to pick a concept of God from the meager list you provide?

Don't do anything, for all I care. Continue to flounder around and pretend you're debating.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #25

Don't do anything, for all I care. Continue to flounder around and pretend you're debating.

And you go on pretending that that was a stinging comeback.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24

And that " that "Of course, there is no God" is a Bare Assertion fallacy, as I said." is a fail as that is not the claim.The claim is that we can propose hypotheses or just ideas to try to test.

In "Of course, there is no God", the claim is that there is no God and that this should be accepted as a given.

[boatsnguitars]

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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24

And that " that "Of course, there is no God" is a Bare Assertion fallacy, as I said." is a fail as that is not the claim.The claim is that we can propose hypotheses or just ideas to try to test.

In "Of course, there is no God", the claim is that there is no God and that this should be accepted as a given.

Close but not quite. 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'. Thus the default explanation (or potential one) is a materialist/Natural explanation now or to be expected. The burden of proof is on the claim of a supernatural - type answer (e.g cosmic mind).

That said, your strawman is also very familiar. It forces a gnostic - type claim on atheism/materialism which we do not make. 'Of course there is no God' in relation to the Biblical one is justified or at least excusable as the Biblical god is not credible. But a possible god/cosmic mind is not and cannot be ruled out because we know so little. I believe I have said before that Cosmic Origins is the best theist 'gap for God'. I beleive I have also said it doesn't matter as there is no way I can believe a possible cosmic mind cares about any of our home -grown religion even supposing it cares anything about us. The Cosmic Origin argument is amusing sometimes, especially in the way the God -apologists strawman, project, ignore evidence and appeal to unknowns. In fact the theist position is irrational as well as irrelevant to the Religion -debate, which is the one that matters.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.