Moral Realism?

[Tassman]

Of course you don't - keep telling yourself that...

It's you who needs to keep telling yourself that an invisible, omni-entity exists when there's no substantive evidence to support such a delusion.

[seer]

I don’t have a god seer and nor do you, you only think you do.

Of course you don't - keep telling yourself that...

[Tassman]

Well I will give you your due, at least your god doesn't make moral demands on you.

I don’t have a god seer and nor do you, you only think you do.

[seer]

Sigh!

I’ve said nothing at all about “worshipping” any of the many empirically verified scientific facts such as the heliocentric universe, the laws of gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum theory and electro-magnetic theory…to name a few established scientific theories. And there are many more to come including, possibly, multiverse theory.

You may feel the need to attribute the existence of the universe(s) to a Bronze Age deity who demands to be worshipped, but don’t tar me with the same brush.

Well I will give you your due, at least your god doesn't make moral demands on you.

[Tassman]

There you go again, worshiping your great god multiverse. The great powerful creator of universes!

Sigh!

I’ve said nothing at all about “worshipping” any of the many empirically verified scientific facts such as the heliocentric universe, the laws of gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum theory and electro-magnetic theory…to name a few established scientific theories. And there are many more to come including, possibly, multiverse theory.

You may feel the need to attribute the existence of the universe(s) to a Bronze Age deity who demands to be worshipped, but don’t tar me with the same brush.

[seer]

To this point we have a great deal. There’s nothing mythical about the heliocentric universe, laws of gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum theory, theory of gravity and electro-magnetic theory…to name a few verified scientific theories...with many more to come including, possibly, multiverse theory.

There you go again, worshiping your great god multiverse. The great powerful creator of universes!

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, it is this universe, with its laws and specific parameters that allow for scientific exploration that needs to be explained.

…and your explanation is an unsubstantiated creation myth. Gotcha!

And to this point you got nothing. Except somekind of mythical multiverse.

To this point we have a great deal. There’s nothing mythical about the heliocentric universe, laws of gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum theory, theory of gravity and electro-magnetic theory…to name a few verified scientific theories...with many more to come including, possibly, multiverse theory.

[seer]

No! Unlike the 'god-did-it' myth the "nature did-it" scenario is not mythology. It's supported by empirically verified facts such as notion of temporal uniformity in nature whereby science can make testable predictions and develop technologies, increase human knowledge and greatly enhance the human condition. It’s the difference between facts (science) and fantasy (religion).

Nonsense Tass, it is this universe, with its laws and specific parameters that allow for scientific exploration that needs to be explained. And to this point you got nothing. Except somekind of mythical multiverse.

[Tassman]

You mean like the "nature-did-it" myth?

No! Unlike the 'god-did-it' myth the "nature did-it" scenario is not mythology. It's supported by empirically verified facts such as notion of temporal uniformity in nature whereby science can make testable predictions and develop technologies, increase human knowledge and greatly enhance the human condition. It’s the difference between facts (science) and fantasy (religion).

[seer]

Correct. It would be the whole enchilada IF there was any substantive evidence supporting the ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis. But there’s not.

Yes, it’s called creation mythology.

You mean like the "nature-did-it" myth?

[Tassman]

Well the creation of the universe would not be a "gap" it would be the whole ball of wax.

Correct. It would be the whole enchilada IF there was any substantive evidence supporting the ‘god-did-it’ hypothesis. But there’s not.

The fact is Tass any past eternal assumption for matter/energy is a faith based position, and nothing more.

Yes, it’s called creation mythology.

[JimL]

Well the creation of the universe would not be a "gap" it would be the whole ball of wax. The fact is Tass any past eternal assumption for matter/energy is a faith based position, and nothing more.

The difference seer is that unlike the notion of a creator, the existence of matter/energy is an empirical fact, which being that there is no evidence of a creator of it, or evidence of anything coming from nothing, then it can be logically assumed to be past eternal and in no need of a creator. Is the existence of god such an empirical fact? No! Is there any empirical evidence that something can come from nothing? No! So believing, having faith, in an eternally existing god is not a logical assumption to make in the same sense as is believing, having faith, in the eternal existence of the universe.

[Jichard]

Failed hypothesis Tass? Like your multiverse theories that have no substantial evidence? Beside, God is not a hypothesis, He is a Person.

And the multiverse is a multiverse, not a theory.

Of course, one can have a theory or hypothesis about the multiverse. But if you admit that, then would would need to stop pretending that one cannot have a hypothesis about God.

Basically, you're conflating:

1 : a theory or hypothesis about X

with:

2 : X is a theory or hypothesis

The two aren't the same. For example, one can have a theory about cells, without cells themselves being a theory.
Tassman was clearly using 1 when discussing God and a God-made universe, while you pretended as if he were discussing 2. Hence you pretending that Tassman was calling God itself a "hypothesis" (as opposed to 1, where Tassman would be discussing hypotheses about God and/or about a God-made universe), and you then responding that "God is not a hypothesis, He is a Person."

[seer]

One is an atheist because there is no substantive evidence of deities existing, not because of multiverse theory or any other scientific hypothesis or theory. Your oft repeated suggestion that in demonstrating a scientific theory to be wrong or incomplete “so therefore God”, is merely a 'god-of-the-gaps' argument as has been pointed out to you many, many times. Don’t forget that the “gaps” have a habit of getting filled in.

Well the creation of the universe would not be a "gap" it would be the whole ball of wax. The fact is Tass any past eternal assumption for matter/energy is a faith based position, and nothing more.

[Tassman]

I introduced it Tass, because you accused me of believing something for which there is no evidence, well you are doing the same thing. You do believe that matter or energy are past eternal, you have to as an atheist - yet there is no evidence that that is so. Once again, the pot calling the kettle black.

One is an atheist because there is no substantive evidence of deities existing, not because of multiverse theory or any other scientific hypothesis or theory. Your oft repeated suggestion that in demonstrating a scientific theory to be wrong or incomplete “so therefore God”, is merely a 'god-of-the-gaps' argument as has been pointed out to you many, many times. Don’t forget that the “gaps” have a habit of getting filled in.