Op, you are very much on point.

However, there are two fallacies commonly noticed among atheists.

1. The fallacy of hasty generalization hasty generalization is a conclusion that because most people in a class are wrong, therefore everyone in that same class must be wrong. Atheists concludes that because most christians cannot prove the existence of God, therefore all Christians cannot prove the existence of God.

2.. Non-conformation to law of identity fallacy the law of identity explains that the identity anything is nothing but that identity, that if the identity of a thing is not known one cannot say anything categorically about that thing.

If God truly exist, then there is nothing else but God truly exist.That if the existence of God is not known to the first person, then he cannot say anything categorically about it. Meaning, he cannot argue anything until he is 100% certain of his position.
Likewise, if God truly do not exist, then there is nothing else but God truly do not exist. That if the non existence of God is not known to the second person, then he cannot say anything categorically about it. Meaning, he cannot argue anything until he is 100% certain of his position.

Having established that, the first person is the atheist and the second person is the theist(as in a Christian who has read bible and is 100% certain of God existence)

1. The second person has read the bible , the first person is an atheist and not a Christian therefore he cannot possibly read the bible.
2. Because the second person has a cognitive understanding of the bible, therefore he is 100% sure of God's existence and can therefore say something categorically about it, and because the first person has not read the bible therefore, he is not 100% sure of his position that God do not exist therefore cannot say anything categorically about it .

EmperorHarry:
Oh really? Interesting.. What preceded the big bang?



Dude trust me I totally get the scientific theory thing but I'm pretty sure it is still just a theory which has the potential of becoming a fact. Theory of relativity has not been disproven but is still a theory cos science doesn't want to make errors where assumptions are facts which is then disproven over time.

but gravity is also a scientific theory. Why don’t you say gravity is not a fact ?

Paxonel, I think I have noticed the hasty generation by some atheist but I think most religious people commit this fallacy “because Joseph Stalin and mao were atheist and mass murderes, then all atheist are killers”

LordReed:


Are you trying to be funny cos it's not working. How does we don't know how it started translate to it doesn't have a cause?

Nope.I'm just stating the obvious which is the cause that precedes the big bang is unknown so there's no rational explanation that supports or refutes the unknown cause.So saying the big bang is the starting position to an atheistic evolutionist is logical until further evidence or data is provided about the cause that precedes.
Just like a theist would say God created the universe but has no logical explanation or information of what occurred before God could exist or a lack thereof.

So now you are equating scientific theories that are rigorously figured out with intuition?

More or less(when comparing all available explanations for a phenomenon/subject) cos they can be rendered invalid no matter how many rigorous tests and experiments were initially carried out to ascertain it's feasibility&authenticity.

Dick stopped having fevered dreams.

Lol...Nice

hakeem4:
but gravity is also a scientific theory. Why don’t you say gravity is not a fact ?

Hmm..gravity was a fact but became a theory.

EmperorHarry:

Hmm..gravity was a fact but became a theory.

no! A scientific theory explains the phenomenon. If you still think gravity is a force in 2019 then

So back to the discussion no matter the evidence in this world you give a scientific theory can never become a law.

EmperorHarry:
Nope.I'm just stating the obvious which is the cause that precedes the big bang is unknown so there's no rational explanation that supports or refutes the unknown cause.So saying the big bang is the starting position to an atheistic evolutionist is logical until further evidence or data is provided about the cause that precedes.
Just like a theist would say God created the universe but has no logical explanation or information of what occurred before God could exist or a lack thereof.




More or less(when comparing all available explanations for a phenomenon/subject) cos they can be rendered invalid no matter how many rigorous tests and experiments were initially carried out to ascertain it's feasibility&authenticity.

Lol...Nice

Why do you seem so eager to set everything on equal footing? Especially as it means you need to create strawman and apply deliberate misunderstandings.

I have not heard any "evolutionists" say the BBT is the start or first cause primarily because BBT and evolution are not tied together. Also you seem to want to make BBT the same as a god speculation when they are not even in the same ballpark. That we don't know what caused BBT has not automatically made BBT the first cause that's an absurd interpretation. We don't know remains we dont know and leaves all manner of first causes up for speculation. Unlike the god speculation where the religious assert the god is an uncaused cause. How you able to just say the 2 are the same is baffling.

As for theories being over turn you seem to think they are just discarded willy nilly. When relativity superseded Newtonian gravitational observations it did not render Newtonian theories invalid rather it gave further information about conditions and observations that Newtonian theory could not account for. Similarly, the same way quantum mechanics doesn't invalidate relativity instead provides explanations for places relativity can not.

Observations can not be rendered invalid (if done under the right conditions of course), explanations can.

hakeem4:
no! A scientific theory explains the phenomenon. If you still think gravity is a force in 2019 then

Newton's theory of Gravity was a theory then a fact then a theory when it showed obvious gaps as more information was collected.

So back to the discussion no matter the evidence in this world you give a scientific theory can never become a law.

True but who's fault is that? The earth is flat was a fact then it was disproven and became a theory.So science has taken extreme measures to prevent errors like that in the future.

LordReed:


Why do you seem so eager to set everything on equal footing? Especially as it means you need to create strawman and apply deliberate misunderstandings.

I have not heard any "evolutionists" say the BBT is the start or first cause primarily because BBT and evolution are not tied together. Also you seem to want to make BBT the same as a god speculation when they are not even in the same ballpark. That we don't know what caused BBT has not automatically made BBT the first cause that's an absurd interpretation. We don't know remains we dont know and leaves all manner of first causes up for speculation. Unlike the god speculation where the religious assert the god is an uncaused cause. How you able to just say the 2 are the same is baffling.

I believe I clarified it by using the word atheist evolutionist. Well the big bang and God theories are in the same category when comparing possible explanations to why the is universe what it is today.

As for theories being over turn you seem to think they are just discarded willy nilly. When relativity superseded Newtonian gravitational observations it did not render Newtonian theories invalid rather it gave further information about conditions and observations that Newtonian theory could not account for. Similarly, tum mn't invalidate relativity instead provides explanations for places relativity can not.

Observations can not be rendered invalid (if done under the right conditions of course), explanations can.

I fully understand what you're saying regardless of my opinion.

hakeem4:
This was popularly presented by William paley the watch maker analogy is used to describe the intelligent designer. The watch maker asserts that anything complex will require a designer. The way paley put it was that if you walked down a road and you find a wristwatch, if you look at it you would know it’s too complex and orderly to come by a random process, that it requires a designer. Just like how the universe and life is, it also requires a designer. This is the most common excuse given by theist and deist and these are some of the flaws they commit:
1. First and foremost, this is a false analogy fallacy
False analogy fallacy means that because two things have the same property in one aspect, they have the same property in all other aspect. So paley’s logic go thus;
the watch is complex = it requires a designer
life is complex = life also requires a designer

using this faulty logic to reason I can as well say

the watch is complex = it was created in 2006
life is complex = it was created in 2006
so this means that because 2 objects share the same property in one does not mean they share other properties.

To be honest, this your particular argument is poor. Doesn't refute what it hoped to refute at all

EmperorHarry:
I believe I clarified it by using the word atheist evolutionist. Well the big bang and God theories are in the same category when comparing possible explanations to why the is universe what it is today.

Unless the atheist in question does not understand what BBT and evolution represent, the 2 are not related. Evolution says nothing about origin of life so how is it related? BBT doesn't say it is the first event so how is it a first cause? Nobody who understands these things will mean what you say they mean.

LordReed:


Unless the atheist in question does not understand what BBT and evolution represent, the 2 are not related. Evolution says nothing about origin of life so how is it related? BBT doesn't say it is the first event so how is it a first cause? Nobody who understands these things will mean what you say they mean.

If I asked you as an atheist how the world(cosmos and life)came to be without an intelligent designer,what theories would be your go to theories? BBT is most likely.The BBT is one of the theories created to refute an intelligent designer theory when question in such a context is asked.

But maybe I'm just speaking vacuously and as such I ask you to pardon my misgivings.

EmperorHarry:

If I asked you as an atheist how the world(cosmos and life)came to be without an intelligent designer,what theories would be your go to theories? BBT is most likely.The BBT is one of the theories created to refute an intelligent designer theory when question in such a context is asked.

But maybe I'm just speaking vacuously and as such I ask you to pardon my misgivings.

BBT had as one of its proponents a priest so no it wasn't proposed as a way to negate ID argument, in fact it still leaves room for ID because it is not set up as a first cause mechanism. That is what you may need to understand. BBT is not a first cause mechanism because itself was caused by some other mechanism we don't know. We dont know because all extrapolations breakdown beyond Planck time (a time threshold beyond which what we know of physics seems to cease to make sense).

LordReed:


BBT had as one of its proponents a priest so no it wasn't proposed as a way to negate ID argument, in fact it still leaves room for ID because it is not set up as a first cause mechanism. That is what you may need to understand. BBT is not a first cause mechanism because itself was caused by some other mechanism we don't know. We dont know because all extrapolations breakdown beyond Planck time (a time threshold beyond which what we know of physics seems to cease to make sense).

Comprehension of the BBT as a likely event that occurred is easy. So I don't have any problems with the theory independent of it's use as evidence that refutes the intelligent designer theory. I apologise for the initial ambiguous statement about it being the original position of evolutionists".When I said evolutionists,I meant "people who use evolution and the big bang to refute the intelligent designer theory" which then makes the big bang the [b]first cause[\b] for the existence of the cosmos(I explained my opinion on this earlier which remains the same). Evolution is compatible with the intelligent designer theory on some level.

Note: @bolded In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...God remains the first cause until we are certain of what caused his existence. The uncreated creator makes him the first cause whether it is valid or invalid.
Unknown-Unknown-Unknown-God-Universe etc. Now the unknown could be the nothing. I would have explained this further if I didn't have to type these things out. Anyways I rest my case.

EmperorHarry:
Comprehension of the BBT as a likely event that occurred is easy. So I don't have any problems with the theory independent of it's use as evidence that refutes the intelligent designer theory. I apologise for the initial ambiguous statement about it being the original position of evolutionists".When I said evolutionists,I meant "people who use evolution and the big bang to refute the intelligent designer theory" which then makes the big bang the first cause for the existence of the cosmos(I explained my opinion on this earlier which remains the same). Evolution is compatible with the intelligent designer theory on some level.

Note: @bolded In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...God remains the first cause until we are certain of what caused his existence. The uncreated creator makes him the first cause whether it is valid or invalid.
Unknown-Unknown-Unknown-God-Universe etc. Now the unknown could be the nothing. I would have explained this further if I didn't have to type these things out. Anyways I rest my case.

How can I make this any clearer? BBT is NOT A FIRST CAUSE MECHANISM AND NEVER WAS. What is so hard to understand about this? BBT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE ID. But by all means keep your strawman, it must be very comforting to you.

LordReed:


How can I make this any clearer? BBT is NOT A FIRST CAUSE MECHANISM AND NEVER WAS. What is so hard to understand about this? BBT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO REFUTE ID. But by all means keep your strawman, it must be very comforting to you.

Lol...I'm pretty sure I've clarified this already.

EmperorHarry:
Comprehension of the BBT as a likely event that occurred is easy. So I don't have any problems with the theory independent of it's use as evidence that refutes the intelligent designer theory.

Crystal clear...I'm not sure why you keep denying the obvious and I apologised for the initial misconception but it's all good tho..I'm not dragging this any further.
A good day to you sir.

EmperorHarry:
Lol...I'm pretty sure I've clarified this already.

Crystal clear...I'm not sure why you keep denying the obvious and I apologised for the initial misconception but it's all good tho..I'm not dragging this any further.
A good day to you sir.

That accusation is yours to bear. BBT does not refute ID, I said it before and I say it again but you hold the idea that it does so dear to your heart you can't even absorb new information. Suit yourself and good day.

Check this xmodgames apk