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?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #42

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.

Ah I see. Refuted above .

There's a difference between denying and refuting.

There is indeed. I refute, you deny. In fact dismiss without any explanation.

Things demonstrably work without a god being involved for all anyone can tel.

That's what makes "Of course, there is no God" fallacious. It's the height of arrogance to assume as a matter of course that we can tell everything about the cosmos from our limited perspective. In fact, it involves a second fallacy: "Extraordinary Knowledge".

That's what I already said, which is why that is not what atheism says in regard to some sort of creator god. It is a strawman designed to push the burden of proof back on the atheists, with the equally fallacious idea (I suppose) thet it leaved 'God' as the default theory, which is doesn't. No wonder you prefer to dismiss, rather than refute.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51

That's what makes "Of course, there is no God" fallacious. It's the height of arrogance to assume as a matter of course that we can tell everything about the cosmos from our limited perspective. In fact, it involves a second fallacy: "Extraordinary Knowledge".

That's what I already said, which is why that is not what atheism says in regard to some sort of creator god.

Then atheism doesn't say, "Of course, there is no God".

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #51

That's what makes "Of course, there is no God" fallacious. It's the height of arrogance to assume as a matter of course that we can tell everything about the cosmos from our limited perspective. In fact, it involves a second fallacy: "Extraordinary Knowledge".

That's what I already said, which is why that is not what atheism says in regard to some sort of creator god.

Then atheism doesn't say, "Of course, there is no God".

No, logically it doesn't. I know atheists often say 'There is no God'. This is convenient shorthand for 'On the evidence, I do not believe the claim, in fact I'm sure of it'. I say that, too.

But I know I don't know. Not even with Biblegod 100% sure, and I am sure (as I believe you are) that it doesn't exist. But I can't be 100% sure. Nor can the believers. We are all agnostic, old mate; nobody knows for sure.

So I and atheism as a logical and evidence -based position cannot say 'Of course there is not no god - of any sort.' But we can and do say, 'there is no convincing evidence for a cosmic creator with intelligence and will. Not until there is compelling evidence'. Both in single and double quotes.

I have done this one many times before, and it goes like this: If atheism did make a gnostic claim of 100% definite knowledge that there is no god (of any kind) that would be a fallacy, as you pointed out and atheism per se as a logical position would have to drop it and adopt an agnostic -based non -acceptance of the god (of any kind) claim. Which is what atheism does even if atheists are sure about Biblegod, as well as all the others. And indeed, I am 90 +% sure that if and when we find out how everything happened, it will be material physics as has been the case so far.

I have spent some time on this as you are a darn good agnostic (irreligious theist) and you only fail on this case for a sortagod. It is possible, but (even with the Fine -tuned universe arguments vs Materialist default) there is no compelling evidence that I have seen so far for an intelligent creator of any kind. I would welcome a thread presenting any such.

Hold the bias accusations, they work both ways. You can keep your deist beliefs and welcome, but do at least not use fallacious apologetics to try to slap down atheism, because it does not make a case for a god even if we all were doing the fallacy.

[alexxcJRO]

This isn't necessarily the case. Self-evident =/= self-explanatory.

You are correct!
I was putting a mirror to make you see the errors of theists.
You don't like your own medicine. So funny.

I meant it as an option.
Let me rephrase:
1. Material exists
2. It is not necessary that we need to account for something that already exists. It could be that "Self-evident == self-explanatory".
3. Therefore, "Of course, option there is no God" is not a fallacy.

It's logically inconsistent to say that "God" [for lack of another term] requires an explanation but that the universe doesn't. Materialism doesn't save us from the "turtles-all-the-way-down" dilemma.
Q: If God created everything, who created God?

A: If physical laws make everything exist, what makes physical laws exist?

I was using the logic:
1. We need to account for something that exists(Omniverse)
2. God(Omnibeing) exists
C: Therefore We need to account for something that exists: Omnibeing.

Theist: No we don't-Special pleading.

If we don't then we do not need to account for something that exists: Omniverse.
Either logic is used things are looking bad for theists.

Enjoy!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53

Hold the bias accusations, they work both ways. You can keep your deist beliefs and welcome, but do at least not use fallacious apologetics to try to slap down atheism, because it does not make a case for a god even if we all were doing the fallacy.

I was simply pointing out a couple of individual fallacies, with no illusion that doing so would "slap down atheism".

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #54

I was using the logic:
1. We need to account for something that exists(Omniverse)
2. God(Omnibeing) exists
C: Therefore We need to account for something that exists: Omnibeing.

If this is the logic you were using, then you weren't using the logic I'm using.

"God exists" isn't a premise in any of my arguments. I try to reason from observation to logical conclusion. Some of my reasoning may be inductive, but I try to keep it reasonable.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #53

Hold the bias accusations, they work both ways. You can keep your deist beliefs and welcome, but do at least not use fallacious apologetics to try to slap down atheism, because it does not make a case for a god even if we all were doing the fallacy.

I was simply pointing out a couple of individual fallacies, with no illusion that doing so would "slap down atheism".

Then take it that I was pointing out that they didn't apply to the actuallogical position of atheism on God. The knock on being, as I argued, not only that atheism does not claim to know there is no intelligent creator but that there is no good reason to think there is, but that the materialist default (no god has been shown to be needed for anything known) mandates that non -knowledge that there is a god (agnosticism) mandates non - belief in a god until compelling evidence is found.

I'm not even going to press you about your own beleifs as those are the individual's personal maters, but I just hope that this universal theist slap -down (refutation) is a strawman. I would conceded atheists do say 'there is no God' bu like many a Christian, they are convinced of it for various reasons, but would conceded they can't be totally sure.

I'm glad to have had a chance to put the point anyway

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57

(no god has been shown to be needed for anything known)

A premature assumption as long as quantum transitions occur with no apparent physical cause.

viewtopic.php?t=40592

[Diogenes]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Re: the execution of Michael Servetus, the bigger question is the "Christian Morality" of killing someone because of their theology. Calvin quite literally murdered Servetus.

Calvin is regarded as the author of the prosecution.... Calvin believed that Servetus deserved death because of what Calvin termed "execrable blasphemies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

How on Earth do Christians or Christian theologians justify murder (or 'execution' or 'killing') because they disagree with another's theology? Michael Servetus' "mortal sin" was simply that he was not a trinitarian. He believed there was One God who could manifest in different forms. Calvin is revered by many, but this is a MAJOR problem with Christianity, the belief that people should be killed for their thoughts/positions on how to think about God. Of course, there is plenty of Biblical justification for killing for not believing in the 'right' thing.

Just another example of the arrogant insanity that 'Christianity' can project. Jesus would never have advocated such an abomination. This is just another example of the GREAT DIFFERENCE between Christianity and being a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #57

(no god has been shown to be needed for anything known)

A premature assumption as long as quantum transitions occur with no apparent physical cause.

viewtopic.php?t=40592

but as you say, it is not known so nobody can say whether there is a cause or mechanism that does not need a god or not. That's a gap for god apologetics which, as I'm sure you know, is a fallacy. The fallacies so far have all been on your side and they are the usual faithbased inversion of how the logic should work.

Of course 'quantum' (a gap for God since I began in apologetics shortly after the battle of Crecy) may turn out to be evidence for a god. We don't know, and so we are all agnostics and nobody knows, and those who claim it proves a god simply do not understand logic. But it is why sed to indicate a total disbelief in God, the Bible and Christianity and putting my money on a natural physical cause and mechnaism for Life, the Universe and Everything. It is logically sound, Theism is not.