God and the blind Tailors

Actually, RCH, there's a rather valid point within that mild ridicule.What makes you think your "suit" is better than any others? Without any objective evidence, any choice you make is completely arbitrary. Can you prove that your concept of God is more accurate than the Swimming Potato Monster? The SPM may sound absurd, but I guarantee you that, depending on cultural context, the Christian "invisible man in the sky" deity can sound just as ridiculous. This is why the appeal to personal incredulity is a logical fallacy - just because you personally think that something sounds preposterous doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true. There was a time, after all, when heliocentrism or the idea of a round Earth would have been (and indeed, were) met with ridicule and accusations of blasphemy.As far as hate speech...that's not an accusation you should throw around so lightly. Saying "I think your beliefs are nonsense" is not hate speech, even when it's phrased in a way you find personally insulting. Personally, I find all of Christianity to be offensive - after all, the Bible specifically condemns me to an eternity of suffering for the simple crime of lacking belief.This isn't a forum where flaming is tolerated. Arguments including absurd-sounding metaphors are allowed because they are a legitimate part of debate; dismissals of others arguments without rebuttals or evidence, and with accusations that another poster is a "little boy," are frowned upon at best. You've done nothing with such accusations to promote your argument, and have rather completely failed to address another person's point because you didn't like it.Boo hoo. Sometimes, you'll meet arguments you don't personally like. Crying about them and using ignore buttons doesn't qualify as a rebuttal, and suggests that your argument may be somewhat weaker than you believe if you're unable to respond to someone you've characterized as a child.But back to your initial argument - what makes you think a deity (or a "model" in your metaphor) exists at all?You;ve suggested that the Bible is a decent source of information, but you've simultaneously claimed that the Bible is not a science or history book while also claiming that the Bible is being verified by archeology. Which part? The Exodus that has absolutely zero extrabiblical evidence to support it, with not even a mention of the plagues of Egypt or Hebrew slaves, or any evidence of a nomadic Hebrew group wandering the area for 40 years in the numbers recorded in the Bible? Genesis, with its claims of 6-day Creation that wholly contradict science at every stage of the story, or the great Flood that magically left behind absolutely no evidence of ever having happened? The conquest of Canaan that nobody can find any evidence supporting?If the Bible is neither a science nor a history book, then how can you use it as supporting evidence that your concept of God is more accurate than others? How does one book of metaphors, poetry, and parables become judged as superior to other similar religious texts in characterizing a deity?How do texts filled with metaphor and parable that are not accurate historically or scientifically support the existence of any deity at all?You also referred to "fulfilled prophesy." That's a topic we've gone over here at EvC many times. What prophesies from teh Bible do you believe have been fulfilled? Would you agree that, to qualify as evidence that supernatural predictions have occurred, any prophesy must be sufficiently unambiguous as to allow foresight as opposed to only fitting an event after-the fact, that teh prophesy must be fulfilled independently of the source (Making a prophesy in Harry potter book 1 and then fulfilling it in book 7, for instance, cannot qualify), and that the event fulfilling the prophesy must be independently verified? What prophesies from the Bible do you think meet these requirements? What differentiates the prophesies of the Bible from prophesies from other religions, or even from works of fiction?I see something rather different than a model being fitted for a new suit. Rather, I see a large group of student tailors, all absolutely convinced that there is a model, but who are unable to objectively support any of his measurements, and cannot say exactly why they believe there is a model at all. They all continue to make their suits, and each insists that their suit is superior to the others, but to an outside observer it appears that all of the measurements are arbitrary and pulled from the imaginations and expectations of the tailor rather than any measurement from a real model...and the model himself is nowhere to be seen.

Amen

The forum is actually owned by a deist. We have several Christians on the board - some Biblical literalists, some not.This is a debate forum. Evidence and logic rule here. You'll find that, even among several of our Christians or other religious types, you won't be simply preaching to the choir.We have both sides of the Evolution vs. Creationism debate here - else the forum wouldn't serve much purpose. Expecting to make a post and not have it criticized is rather foolish considering the variety of perspectives represented here. You'd be surprised how open a mind can be if it's presented with actual evidence. You were asked for contemporary sources, and in response you gave several noncontemporary sources.If you can provide a contemporary source claiming that Jesus actually existed, I guarantee you I will accept that Jesus actually existed. I may not believe in the miracles or that the entire content of the Gospels is "Gospel truth," but I'd at least at that point accept that there was a historical Jesus that the Biblical accounts were based upon.It's your failure to provide the evidence requested, not "closed minds," that is your problem.Think of it this way: If I claimed that there was a historical Paul Bunyon, would you believe me? If you requested a contemporary source that provides evidence of his existence, and I instead provided a text written 50 years after his supposed death that simply mentions him, would you believe me then?I wouldn't. Without evidence, I have no reason to believe you. Non contemporary sources are simply evidence that the non contemporary source believed the claim - not evidence that the claim is actually true. Nobody expects you to reply to absolutely everyone in a thread. We all have real lives, and popular topics can make responding to everyone impossible. Don't sweat it. Just try to ensure that the replies you do make are of good quality - quality is much better than quantity around here. Not everyone involved in each debate here is going to be familiar with all of the historical sources. A link to your source (or a reference to a book, etc) goes a long way towards showhing people that you aren't simply making things up, as well as following the rules regarding plagiarism. It's just good practice to mention where you found your information. Not necessarily any academic or professional venue. Perhaps the theological venues...but as you can see, not all scholars that concern themselves with religious texts are beleivers in those religions. Personally, I try to make a habit of questioning everything. That's a shame. In teh Starlight thread, others have taken the time to defend accepted facts to you. If you're unwilling to defend your assertions, why are you posting on a debate forum? "Atheist apologetic sources?" Please cite one. Skepticism is not "atheist apologism." It's simply rational to require evidence before accepting a claim, and to question the claims of others. I believe he meant that many of the documents have been tampered with. I don't know about the documents of Josephus et al myself, but I do know that the actual Biblical texts have been heavily modified, with additions, changes, translation errors, etc over the centuries. I don't find it difficult to believe that some of the historical sources like Josephus may have been tampered with - though obviously I'd need to see evidence of that tampering before having any confidence in such a thing. Such a pity - we'd love to have more Christians around to debate with. But if you're not interested in debate, but rather only want to preach to the choir, you're in the wrong place. Here, everything is questioned and criticized - that's the entire point of a debate forum. If you choose not to participate in the debate in good faith, then I predict you'll find yourself unwelcome here - posting and then continually refusing to respond to anyone who doesn't share your view would quickly take the appearance of spam. You failed to provide any sources who would have even been alive in the same time period. 50 years later is not contemporary, no matter how you slice it - such a person will not have had direct knowledge of the events. All that's required would be government documents regarding Jesus (he was executed by Roman authorities, and was apparently much discussed by the Pharisees - someone should have kept a record of him at the time, not only long after his death), or a personal account. The Gospels would have counted had they not been written years after Jesus' death. An actual, contemporary source from the region at the correct time period that speaks of a man named Jesus and his followers is all you need to provide. Says the pot to the kettle.Your claims will always be challenged here. You aren't a preacher in this place. We aren't going to all nod and agree with whatever you say. We're going to ask why, we're going to demand evidence, and we aren't going to care how many degrees you have - if you can't support your positions with evidence, your "authority" is worthless. The same goes for the rest of us here.This forum has the full gamut of theological experts (both preachers like you and people like Theordoric), biologists (like Bluejay, who is also a Mormon), physicists (cavediver and Son Goku), and even comedians like onifre or IT administrators like myself. We participate here as a hobby, because debating these issues for us is a fun mental exercise, and it makes this forum a wonderful place to learn.I've learned from religious members here, just as I've learned from our scientific experts and our laypeople. I'd be more than happy to learn from you, as well. There are active traditional Christians here. Banning happens only when a person continually breaks the rules and fails to respond to moderator requests. You, for instance, have not been banned for your beliefs. My beliefs are very different from Percy's (the owner of the forum, who is a deist), and yet I have not been banned or even suspended on those occasions where I suggested that his beliefs are irrational.My advice? Calm down. Stop taking any statement that doesn't agree with you as "Christian hate speech." This isn't an atheist circle-jerk (I know of forums like that, as well as their Christian opposites, if you'd like one of them). If you'd like a place to debate and discuss freely with others who have a variety of different perspectives, then welcome to EvCforum.Now...would you like to return to your OP? I think it's a great topic that can (and already has) spawn some great discussion...even if I don't agree with the premise.After all, how boring would it be if we all agreed?

You cannot sue for basically anything said here. A lawsuit for defamation or libel requires material damage due to untrue statements or diminished reputation. For instance, I can call you a lying halfwitted chickenfucker all I want, and you can't sue until it becomes harassment. There's no material damage you can prove. Further, libel cases in the US are extremely difficult - you would literally have to prove that the statements are false, not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the complainant (you) not the defendant (the person who made the allegedly-false claim). It's rather backwards, but to use the above example, it means that you would need to prove that you do not fuck chickens, rather than me being required to prove that you do.If, on the other hand, you were engaged in a business and I accused you in a newspaper editorial of committing fraud or selling unsafe products, and you could show that this resulted in a diminished reputation for your business and corresponding lowered sales, you would be able to sue me for defamation or libel.Have you suffered any material damage from what's been posted at this site, RCH? Have you suffered mental pain and anguish, and would you be able to have a psychologist sign a statement in court that you have suffered lasting psychological trauma? Would you be able to convince any judge or jury anywhere that this is the case? Have you suffered loss of revenue?If not, you're just an ignorant blowhard. And very likely a troll. The only thing being made out of it is that you come off as a complete douche and an idiot when you start talking about lawsuits over what's said on a casual debate forum.

On an internet debate forum. You can't sue over that. See my post above. You're hilarious RCH. Who the hell is going to pay a lawyer and go through all of that trouble to establish credentials on an internet message board? Information stolen? The hilarity continues. Has your identity been stolen, RCH? Has someone improperly gained access to your confidential information? Or has someone simply looked at public records? An internet search in a publicly available (or at least alumni-available) database is not "unethical stalking?"You're beyond funny, RCH. You're just a crackbrained troll. Please, feel free to amuse me further until the admins finally have enough of your content-free, sue-happy accusational nonsense and ban you.Oh, wait, let me guess - if you're banned, you'll count that as material damage because your "right" to post on a private message board has been infringed, and you'll sue us all!

I see that you have not actually done so.If you'd like to report an issue requiring admin attention, here's the appropriate thread:EvC Forum: Report discussion problems here: No.2

An attempt to get back to the topic:RCH, you have suggested that all (most? some?) religions are simply multiple attempts to describe a single truth. You've used the analogy of multiple student tailors, some of whom make suits that fit the real client better than others.What makes you think this? Do you have an objective reason, or is this simply an attempt to grant validity to other religions while holding your own as what you consider the "best fit?"When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.This is the equivalent of several of the student tailors making partial suits for multiple clients.Several religions (Buddhism, Scientology, various ancestor-worshiping or animist religions, lots of new-age beliefs) do not believe in a god at all.That's rather analogous to several of the tailoring students insisting that there is no client to tailor a suit for.In the face of all of the mutually exclusive beliefs regarding god(s) and the supernatural, what makes you think they are all attempts to describe the same thing with differing degrees of success? Isn't that like asking art students to paint a dog, and several of them painting houses, stars, and flowers? Isn't there a limit at which point you say "you cannot be describing the same thing I am, our descriptions are simply too different?"You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?Why do you consider the Christian concept of god to be superior to Allah? To Thor, or Odin? To Buddha, or Shiva? To the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is there an actual, objective reason, some sort of evidence that the Christian concept explains better than the others?In science, we often have multiple hypotheses attempting to describe a single observation. We then test the predictions of each hypothesis against further observation and experimentation to determine which hypothesis is the most accurate. What observations, if any, do you believe support the Christian explanation of god(s) better than any others?What makes you think there is a client at all? Could the student tailors have simply convinced themselves that there is a client and each began making a suit to fit their own conceptualization of the imagined clients' measurements would be? Wouldn't that more accurately fit a situation where it doesn't seem like any of the students have ever actually seen the client, but instead make suits (or do not make them) for completely different clients, or even different numbers of clients?Do you have any objective evidence, something outside of faith, that suggests that god(s) may actually exist?

That's not what I asked. I'm not asking why you chose the metaphor, I'm asking why you believe what the metaphor represents to be accurate. Why do you believe that all religions are attempts to explain the same, "true" deity? Couldn't some (most? all?) be completely made-up and have nothing to do with reality at all? But why? What makes you think this? Family tradition? Social pressure? "Gut feeling?" A revealed truth? In what form? Objective evidence? We all live in the same world - yours is no different from mine objectively. Only our subjective opinions and interpretations, and our specific chain of personal experiences are different. What makes you conclude that this world includes a deity? Again, why? That's some very interesting speculation, and I'll admit to thinking along the same lines in the past. But it's just speculation unless you can give a reason. What ties all religions together to make you think they're all various attempts at the same truth? Why did "curiosity" branch out so differently? Why do you assume that god(s) are omnipotent? Omniscient? Why do you assume that god(s) created the Universe? Not all religions say this was the case - in fact, many suggest no such thing. Why? Why would you expect, given that there is only one objective truth that all are attempting to divine, that wildly different mutually exclusive ideas would be prevalent? If I quickly flash a picture of a dog in front of an audience and then ask them to draw what they saw, most would at least draw something with four legs. Even if I gave each person a different view, or only let some of them touch a dog briefly without looking, we'd expect to find some strong similarities. We wouldn't expect anyone to draw a house or a car; we wouldn't expect anyone to draw flowers or a star. Yet with religion we find disparities on that level. Again, this ignores the question. I asked why different religions do not believe god(s) are omnipotent, or that there are more than one. This directly conflicts with your own belief; you would say that it's a poorly fitting suit. But it's not just poorly fitting - it's multiple suits that don't resemble any of the suits made for a single model. Why is this the case, if there is one truth that everyone is trying to describe? What caused the difference? Buddhism does not include any deity. Buddha is simply a man who has achieved enlightenment. Some denominations believe in the supernatural, others less so. Some believe in reincarnation, others do not. RCH, we know that this is what you believe. You're stating your position but failing to give the requested explanation. What makes you think god(s) exist at all? What reason? "I personally believe..." is a statement, not an answer, and more it's a statement of a fact we already know. Why do you think god(s) exist? But that's nonsense. Probability is statistics. You cannot separate the two.What fact or observation makes you think that one-god or any-god is more probable than many-gods or no-gods? And yet your suggestion requires the premise that any god(s) exist at all, and further implies a single "creator." What if the Universe simply exists? What if existence is inevitable? What tells you, one way or the other? ...doesn't that precisely mean that we cannot be describing the same thing? If I describe a house while you describe a chicken, why would you assume that we were describing the same thing, and one of us was simply inaccurate? Are we not in fact describing completely different things that have no relation to each other? You just said "my beliefs lead me to believe that my beliefs are more accurate." This is circular reasoning, and it is a logical fallacy. This isn't even bare assertion - you're referring to evidence you haven't presented. What evidence, specifically, do you believe supports your position? Feel free to leave out the personal bits if you like, but surely you can describe some of the archeological/astronomical evidence, or why you believe historical roman writings support your views. Personal credulity is irrelevant - in fact, it's another logical fallacy. What seems personally credulous has nothing to do with accuracy - it's an example of speculation, not of rigorous adherence to reality. Is there an objective test you apply to all religious texts to measure their accuracy? If the goal is to accurately describe reality, I don't see how different standards and methods work. Only by testing the predictions of our hypotheses against reality can we gauge the relative accuracy of those hypotheses. Bare speculation followed by naked faith is demonstrably no more accurate than guessing. Why would we believe such a method has greater accuracy in describing that which we cannot test, when it has no accuracy at all when the same method is used for hypotheses we can test? Not really - you haven't said anything. You haven't given a single explanation, not answered a single "why." You haven't presented any evidence. You've given a circular argument, an appeal to personal credulity, and the rest has been "I have evidence, trust me" or "this is just what I think, I could be wrong."What is there in that to keep anyone busy? You've been busy dodging questions, nothing more. That's a rather significant assertion. Please explain this in your own words. What does KCA stand for? What makes you assert that nothing can exist without a cause? Why can the Universe not simply exist? How do you know that the Universe is not simply the default state? I can just as easily ask "why should there be nothing? Why do you assume that nonexistence if the default state?" That's simply an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. Why are all gods other than yours considered extraneous entities? Do you have some bit of evidence distinguishing your deity from the others? What makes your deity a required term, and all other deities unrequired? Please explain. Referring to KCA doesn't tell us much; a brief summary of what you think objectively supports the existence of god(s) would be a big help. Is there at least an empirical method to support the god hypothesis with evidence? Is there an observation or fact that increases the likelihood of god(s) existing beyond the probability of them not existing, even if that observation or fact stops short of actually proving their existence?If not...why should I believe you? Why should I consider you any different from any other person who genuinely believes in magical men in the sky? How would I differentiate your beliefs from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's been shown that many portrayals of deities are simply made-up nonsense; Zeus does not throw lightning bolts from Olympus, and Apollo does not drive a chariot across the sky with the Sun for a wheel. Why should I consider your deity to be any less made-up than the deities of the past?

And as I explained, this is an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. You have still not explained why your deity is a required term and all other deities are extraneous.Let's explain Occam's Razor in more specific terms:The Principle of Parsimony, frequently called Occam's Razor, states that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. If we take for example the equation 1+1+x=2, parsimony suggests that we should remove the x term, as it is extraneous. x=0, and so it doesn't make any difference to the equation - it is an extraneous term. You could just as well write the same equation as 1+1+x+x+x=2. All of the x terms are irrelevant, and should be excluded; at best they have absolutely no practical effect on the equation, and at worst they simply do not exist.In science, a required term is one whose presence is required to complete a theoretical model. For instance, when describing the Theory of Gravity, the price of tea in China is an irrelevant and thus extraneous term; it has no effect on the observed effects of gravity, and removing the term changes absolutely nothing. There is no evidence, no observation that requires the price of tea to be included in the Theory of Gravity.In the context of our discussion, you are claiming that Zeus, Thor, and all other gods are extraneous terms; you consider them unlikely to exist and don't think they have a place in our representation of the real Universe. However, you believe your deity to be a required term, without having shown the observation that requires your deity to be included while the others are excluded. You are differentiating between god concepts without providing any objective, evidential reasons for that discrimination. You are applying Occam's Razor inconsistently; you are engaged in special pleading because you differentiate your preferred deity from all others on no objective basis, counting yours as required and all others as extraneous without demonstrating the difference.What observation requires your deity to be included? Without an actual, objective observation that requires your deity to be included, your deity seems to be just as extraneous a term as Zeus, Thor, and the Easter Bunny. Occam's Razor should remove your deity along with all of the other unevidenced propositions from the currently understood model of the Universe. What specific cosmological argument requires the inclusion of god(s)? Why does the archeological verification of some Biblical claims give credence to the more extraordinary claims of the Bible, such as the existence of god(s)? Why do you not apply the same importance to the Iliad, when its claims of a city called Troy and a war fought there have turned out to be accurate? Does this lend veracity to its claims of a man invulnerable to harm except for his heel, or the existence of the Greek pantheon? Why does the falsification of such Biblical claims as a global Flood, 6-day Creation, and the Exodus not decrease the credibility of the Bible?Why do the extraordinary claims of ancient writings carry credibility when those specific claims (the existence of god(s), the raising of the dead, etc) are completely untestable, unfalsifiable and unverifiable by independent sources? Why does your ancient collection of writings carry more weight than does the Rig-Veda, a far older religious text?Why does your ancient collection of writings carry more weight than modern fiction? After all, in the Harry Potter series, London is real; is this evidence that the Wizarding World actually exists as well? You referred to fulfilled prophesy - in the Harry Potter series, several prophesies are made that are later fulfilled according to the collection of texts, frequently in later, separate books. Should we all fear the return of Voldemort? I'm not saying this to be mocking; I'm pointing out the obvious disparity in holding one text to be absolutely true because some of it is true while other similar works are considered pure fiction. I certainly cannot say much about a personal experience. I've had some personal experiences that I found convincing as well, and later found what I consider very good reasons to compeltely discard any such personal experiences. I don't trust my eyes, or my gut. I trust what I can repeatedly verify through independant means. Did I really see a cat dart around the corner, for instance? If I can go around the corner and observe the cat again, and then walk up to the cat and touch it, observe its tracks in the ground, and perhaps find some of its leavings, I'll consider the cat's existence verified. If however I go around the corner and see no cat and no sign of a cat's passing, I'll consider it very likely that I may have misinterpreted what my eyes saw.Remember, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence; people recognize false patterns, engage in compeltely illogical thinking and come up with false conclusions, and even unintentionally distort their own memories. And again I ask, why should there be nothing? Why is "something" not the default state? How would you know? Perhaps the existence of the Universe is inevitable. Different, sure. I'd accept differences like those between Christian denominations, or even those differences between all of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). But the extreme differences between all other religions, such as Hindu or Buddhism or the various Native American religions, suggests that there is no commonality between them. So what you're saying is that all religions have absolutely no common data to base themselves upon? How can you then say they are trying to describe the same thing? How could any of them be likely to accurately describe what you're getting at?If I ask you to describe a glormfreeb, but don't give you any information, what would you describe? How would your description have absolutely any accuracy at all?Aren't you saying at this point that all religions are no better than random guessing at what may or may not exist, with no basis in evidence and no testability for any of them? How then would you differentiate between guesses? If one person says a glormfreeb looks like a cow and another person says a glormfreeb is a type of office building, how would you tell who is more or less accurate? What if I made it up, and there's no such thing as a glormfreeb? What you've described is random guessing. That certainly explains the differences, but it doesn't explain why you believe all religions to be attempts to explain a single objective truth. Once again - you haven't presented anything. You've repeated the words "KCA" and "cosmological arguments," but you have not explained what those mean. What cosmological argument? What does KCA stand for, and what makes it an effective argument for the existence of god(s)? I keep asking you to present them, and you keep on saying "KCA and cosmological arguments." Repeating yourself is not an explanation. Please state, in your own words, what KCA is and how it supports the existence of god(s); please also state, in your own words, what cosmological argument supports the existence of god(s). It is nonsense. You referred to probability but excluded statistical probability. That's like me saying "light, but not electromagnetism." And as I showed above, your Occam's Razor argument is simply an inconsistent application of the principle based on evidence you either have refused to show or simply do not have. What makes you think that? Why should the Universe require a cause? Even if it does, why should we consider that the cause must be god(s)?By that same principle, don't god(s) need to be caused as well? Or are you making a special exception for god(s)? On what basis? Couldn't we just as easily make a special exception for the Universe itself and consider god(s) to be an extraneous term based on Occam's Razor? Yes, but you gave those reasons without explaining them, when I asked not for repetition but for explanation. Your responses have been the equivalent of me claiming that I believe the Theory of Evolution to be accurate because of biology and the fossil record; that statement may be true, but I haven't explained how the fossil record or general biology are evidence for evolution, have I? In the same way, you have mentioned "KCA" and "cosmological arguments," but you have not stated how those support the existence of god(s). But you haven't given any detail at all. Redundancy, sure - you've said "KCA and cosmological evidence and some archeological support for the Bible and fulfilled Biblical prophesy" several times, but you haven't said once what KCA is, or what cosmological arguments support the existence of god(s), or what archeological evidence supports the veracity of the Bible, or what Biblical prophesies you consider to have been fulfilled. I've asked for explanations several times now; please, in your reply don't just repeat the same words, but explain what those words mean. So your "cosmological argument" is simply that everything needs a cause, ergo god(s) caused the Universe?" That's it?That's rather poor reasoning. You're making an unfounded logical leap by throwing god(s) in as an explanation without any evidence that god(s) even exist at all - the fact is that you don't know what caused the Universe, or if the Universe even had a cause at all. You're arguing for the existence of god(s) out of ignorance (as in, "I don't know, ergo god(s)"). You're asserting that everything requires a cause...except god(s), meaning you're engaged in special pleading. Surely there's more to this argument than that, or are you really so easily swayed by such obviously fallacious reasoning? Harry Potter refers to real people and places. Is the Harry Potter series fiction or nonfiction? The Epic of Gilgamesh refers to real places and even a real event. Do the gods of Gilgamesh actually exist? We have detailed historical accounts of Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and David Koresh. Does independent verification for their existence lend credibility to their extraordinary claims? Should we all be Mormons? Should we all fear the return of Xenu, the Galactic Emperor? Was David Koresh actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? An Argument from Personal Credulity is a logical fallacy. If I went back in time 2000 years and told a random person that the Earth was actually an ovoid sphere orbiting the Sun, and the person laughed at me in incredulity, has my claim been refuted? Certainly not. Personal credulity, what you instinctively find to be believable, has absolutely nothing to do with actual real-world accuracy. You may find the existence of god(s) to be more palatable than their nonexistence, and a child may find the notion that Santa is made up to be ludicrous; neither of you is necessarily accurate. Only evidence and logic can support an argument, not personal believability. Certainly the scientists who authenticate ancient scrolls are thorough. Their findings are peer reviewed. But the age and authenticity of the scrolls themselves was never a question. What is at question is what the scrolls say. Remember, we have far older and better-preserved ancient religious texts in the form of the Rig-Veda. Other ancient documents go through the same rigorous testing and authentication process. None of that means that their religious claims have any accuracy. And what have they to do with reality? How can you claim that one speculative proposition is more valid than another without using the scientific method to test them? And again, you've shown no evidence beyond a multitude of logical fallacies. And yet I've already demonstrated that your arguments are logical swiss-cheese, filled with fallacious and inconsistent reasoning. WHAT IS THE KCA?! How can I possibly try to rebut the KCA if you won't tell me what it is in your own words? I cannot address an argument you have not vocalized. FINALLY you at least state what KCA stands for. From Wiki:

quote:

---

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

​

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

​

Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

---

So KCA and your cosmological argument are the same, and it's a simple reasoning that everything must have a cause, therefore god(s) caused the universe. I've already shown why this reasoning is horrendously fallacious. It seems you're basing your beliefs on a popular misconception of the Big Bang. Big bang cosmology is not a theory of cosmological origins. It describes only the continual expansion of the Universe, and makes certain predictions regarding the state of the Universe at different locations in time based on that expansion. The Big Bang predicts that the Universe long ago would have been more dense in the past, leading up to the moment of T=0 where the spacial dimensions would be only a single point. It does not posit that the Unvierse had a "beginning" any more than it posits that "length" had a "beginning." Instead, it shows that, quite literally, the Unvierse has existed at every point in time.Further, it posits that expansion seems to be a basic trait of space. It says absolutely nothing about requiring a "cause" for the Universe itself. It is still entirely within the realm of scientific possibility that the Universe simply exists, with no additional cause; that something must exist and "nothing" is not the default state (by default state, I mean the state of rest without any cause; you assert that the default state, for example, must be "nothing" until god(s) cause "something. I am simply pointing out that this is an unfounded assumption on your part - "something" may be the default state without any cause required).The Laws of Thermodynamics further contradict your claims of a "beginning." Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If they can neither be created nor destroyed, they must have always existed in some form or another for every location in time. This is circular reasoning - your conclusion (all religions are attempts to describe the One True Religion) is contained in your premise (all other gods are your god). You've also ignored Occam's Razor - you haven't suggested why your deity is a required term but others are not. Now that you've told us what KCA stands for, I've done so as you can see above. But please, here at evcforum we discourage arguments by bare links or references, and require that you state a summary in your own words to the rest of us. "Common sense" is foolishness. Human reasoning ability is horrendously flawed. Only strict adherence to logic and evidence can ensure at least some degree of accuracy. Again, personal credulity is the basis of a logical fallacy. I see nothing in the universe that appears designed, save what human beings have made. "The design thing" has been discussed here many times, and I have never seen an effective argument for Intelligent Design. I reject faith entirely as a method for obtaining accurate information. Belief not based on evidence is nothing more than a gigantic logical fallacy; a series of unfounded logical leaps with no objective tie to reality. It requires that you have greater confidence in one assertion than in others despite equivalent evidence. I cannot hold myself to such mental gymnastics and inconsistencies. I believe what can be shown based on evidence. Faith is worthless tripe.I say this as a former Christian who once believed with all my heart that God existed. I had personal experiences that I counted as evidence of his existence and love for me. I believed the Bible.All of my reasoning from that time was based on logical fallacies. My faith was built on tradition and social conditioning, on gullibility and wishful thinking, on false pattern recognition and self-deception. If you look at my posting history here, you can actually see some of the transition (when I joined I was a non-literalist Christian, believing the basic message of the Bible even if some of the specifics were inaccurate). I have seen absolutely nothing that demonstrates that anyone else's faith is any different.Perhaps you'll be the first.