Common Christian/Muslim argument: I have an answer and you don't!

[Rhea]

Evaluating logically:

There is a lot more evidence for
things that exist due to the farts of goats
than
things that exist just because they felt like existing.


Goat Farts = 1
Felt Like it = 0


(How did your god know it felt like existing before it existed in order to exist due to its feelings?)

 

[Random Person]

Evaluating logically:

There is a lot more evidence for
things that exist due to the farts of goats
than
things that exist just because they felt like existing.


Goat Farts = 1
Felt Like it = 0


(How did your god know it felt like existing before it existed in order to exist due to its feelings?)

That fails for a number of reasons. First what follows your declaration of, "Evaluating logically" is not a logical evaluation.

There is zero evidence of a universe created by a farting goat. Even the cheer leaders for the farting goat team don't believe that farting goats exist (except for perhaps you.)

 

[Rhea]

Evaluating logically:

There is a lot more evidence for
things that exist due to the farts of goats
than
things that exist just because they felt like existing.


Goat Farts = 1
Felt Like it = 0


(How did your god know it felt like existing before it existed in order to exist due to its feelings?)

That fails for a number of reasons. First what follows your declaration of, "Evaluating logically" is not a logical evaluation.

There is zero evidence of a universe created by a farting goat. Even the cheer leaders for the farting goat team don't believe that farting goats exist (except for perhaps you.)

You are right. Those are good points.
It's true; I was just joking.

Although, but still, I would like to know:
(How did your god know it felt like existing before it existed in order to exist due to its feelings?)

 

[Random Person]

Evaluating logically:

There is a lot more evidence for
things that exist due to the farts of goats
than
things that exist just because they felt like existing.


Goat Farts = 1
Felt Like it = 0


(How did your god know it felt like existing before it existed in order to exist due to its feelings?)

That fails for a number of reasons. First what follows your declaration of, "Evaluating logically" is not a logical evaluation.

There is zero evidence of a universe created by a farting goat. Even the cheer leaders for the farting goat team don't believe that farting goats exist (except for perhaps you.)

You are right. Those are good points.
It's true; I was just joking.

Although, but still, I would like to know:
(How did your god know it felt like existing before it existed in order to exist due to its feelings?)

That wasn't my argument.

 

[Rhea]

That wasn't my argument.

Fair enough.
(Do you have an argument for how your god was created?)

 

[Random Person]

That wasn't my argument.

Fair enough.
(Do you have an argument for how your god was created?)

No.
I don't believe in god.

 

[Rhea]

That wasn't my argument.

Fair enough.
(Do you have an argument for how your god was created?)

No.
I don't believe in god.

Why do you argue for one then? For accepting a weak unsupported hypotheses about gods instead of no hypothesis?

 

[Random Person]

No.
I don't believe in god.

Why do you argue for one then? For accepting a weak unsupported hypotheses about gods instead of no hypothesis?

I don't do either one of those things.

 

[Rhea]

A "no Hypothesis" is less ignorant than a weak hypothesis? It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.

I thought you were arging here that a "no Hypothesis" is more ignorant than a weak hypothesis.

 

[Random Person]

A "no Hypothesis" is less ignorant than a weak hypothesis? It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.

I thought you were arging here that a "no Hypothesis" is more ignorant than a weak hypothesis.

I was asking Skepicalbip to clarify his comment, not making a declarative statement. Please observe the question mark. Do you think no argument is stronger than a weak argument? If so, on what basis?

 

[Rhea]

A "no Hypothesis" is less ignorant than a weak hypothesis? It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.

I thought you were arging here that a "no Hypothesis" is more ignorant than a weak hypothesis.

I was asking Skepicalbip to clarify his comment, not making a declarative statement.

??

You made the declarative statement, “It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.”

Please observe the question mark. Do you think no argument is stronger than a weak argument? If so, on what basis?

An argument so weak as to be utterly unsupported - but nevertheless believed - will prevent one from seeking actual supporting evidence. Yes it is weaker as it contributes to a bias or eschewing further inquiry. It becomes a “pet theory,” or a “Little Darling,” and leads to the attempts to find only evidence that maches the Little Darling theory.

A lack of hypothesis will yield further inquiry. Yes it is stronger than a weak theory of dubious veracity that is clung to emotionally.

 

[Random Person]

I was asking Skepicalbip to clarify his comment, not making a declarative statement.

??

You made the declarative statement, “It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.”

Please observe the question mark. Do you think no argument is stronger than a weak argument? If so, on what basis?

An argument so weak as to be utterly unsupported - but nevertheless believed - will prevent one from seeking actual supporting evidence. Yes it is weaker as it contributes to a bias or eschewing further inquiry. It becomes a “pet theory,” or a “Little Darling,” and leads to the attempts to find only evidence that maches the Little Darling theory.

A lack of hypothesis will yield further inquiry. Yes it is stronger than a weak theory of dubious veracity that is clung to emotionally.

A weak hypothesis vs no hypothesis? No sale. Come back when you have something to work with.

 

[Rhea]

??

You made the declarative statement, “It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.”

An argument so weak as to be utterly unsupported - but nevertheless believed - will prevent one from seeking actual supporting evidence. Yes it is weaker as it contributes to a bias or eschewing further inquiry. It becomes a “pet theory,” or a “Little Darling,” and leads to the attempts to find only evidence that maches the Little Darling theory.

A lack of hypothesis will yield further inquiry. Yes it is stronger than a weak theory of dubious veracity that is clung to emotionally.

A weak hypothesis vs no hypothesis? No sale. Come back when you have something to work with.

The point here is not that these people have created a weak starting point hypothesis that they will later refine and support.
The point is that they will take a weak, unsupported hypothesis and be satisfied with stopping their inquiry right there forever.


You seem to be arguing, "there's nothing wrong with starting with a weak hypothesis - giving you something to work with."
I'll warrant that most of us would consider that completely agreeable.

But.
That's not the context of this discussion. The context of this discussion is people who never work with their hypothesis. They see it, they believe it, they stop caring tjhat it is weak and unsupported.


In that context, (the context of this thread as outlined in the OP)


No hypothesis is better than a weak one.

 

[Underseer]

??

You made the declarative statement, “It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.”

An argument so weak as to be utterly unsupported - but nevertheless believed - will prevent one from seeking actual supporting evidence. Yes it is weaker as it contributes to a bias or eschewing further inquiry. It becomes a “pet theory,” or a “Little Darling,” and leads to the attempts to find only evidence that maches the Little Darling theory.

A lack of hypothesis will yield further inquiry. Yes it is stronger than a weak theory of dubious veracity that is clung to emotionally.

A weak hypothesis vs no hypothesis? No sale. Come back when you have something to work with.

Yes. I agree completely. A weak and unproven hypothesis is better than no hypothesis at all, because it is embarrassing to admit when you don't know something.

That is how I know that God was farted into existence by a giant space goat!

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is true, and because a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis we can say that the space goat is real and caused the existence of God.

Do you finally accept that the space goat is real?

Or are you going to continue assuming that the space goat isn't real despite the fact that you have zero evidence that the space goat doesn't exist?

Are you finally going to admit that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis?

Or do you hate the space goat because you want to be a bad person and because you don't understand how logic works?

Maybe you are OK with being ignorant, but I am not. I would rather have an answer.

Did I mention that I have an answer and you don't?

 

[Random Person]

??

You made the declarative statement, “It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.”

An argument so weak as to be utterly unsupported - but nevertheless believed - will prevent one from seeking actual supporting evidence. Yes it is weaker as it contributes to a bias or eschewing further inquiry. It becomes a “pet theory,” or a “Little Darling,” and leads to the attempts to find only evidence that maches the Little Darling theory.

A lack of hypothesis will yield further inquiry. Yes it is stronger than a weak theory of dubious veracity that is clung to emotionally.

A weak hypothesis vs no hypothesis? No sale. Come back when you have something to work with.

Yes. I agree completely. A weak and unproven hypothesis is better than no hypothesis at all, because it is embarrassing to admit when you don't know something.

That is how I know that God was farted into existence by a giant space goat!

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is true, and because a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis we can say that the space goat is real and caused the existence of God.

Do you finally accept that the space goat is real?

Or are you going to continue assuming that the space goat isn't real despite the fact that you have zero evidence that the space goat doesn't exist?

Are you finally going to admit that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis?

Or do you hate the space goat because you want to be a bad person and because you don't understand how logic works?

Maybe you are OK with being ignorant, but I am not. I would rather have an answer.

Did I mention that I have an answer and you don't?

That sounds like something a Cirque du Soleil clown would say just before slipping into total dementia.

 

[Underseer]

Yes. I agree completely. A weak and unproven hypothesis is better than no hypothesis at all, because it is embarrassing to admit when you don't know something.

That is how I know that God was farted into existence by a giant space goat!

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer to the question "Why does God exist?" and you don't.

I have an answer and you don't, therefore my answer is true, and because a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis we can say that the space goat is real and caused the existence of God.

Do you finally accept that the space goat is real?

Or are you going to continue assuming that the space goat isn't real despite the fact that you have zero evidence that the space goat doesn't exist?

Are you finally going to admit that a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis?

Or do you hate the space goat because you want to be a bad person and because you don't understand how logic works?

Maybe you are OK with being ignorant, but I am not. I would rather have an answer.

Did I mention that I have an answer and you don't?

That sounds like something a Cirque du Soleil clown would say just before slipping into total dementia.

Really?

So you don't agree that it is better to accept a weak hypothesis as true than to say "I don't know"?

But you just got done arguing exactly that.

Just moments ago, you argued that accepting a "weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis" (your words). Now you are saying that sounds crazy.

Does this mean you were lying when you said that accepting a weak hypothesis is better than no hypothesis?

(Hint: it is not ever reasonable to accept a hypothesis as true. They are called hypotheses because they lack evidence and there is no good reason to accept them at all.)

 

[Rhea]

That sounds like something a Cirque du Soleil clown would say just before slipping into total dementia.

Cirque du Soleil has clowns?
.
.
.
.
.
Do they fart?

 

[Random Person]

That sounds like something a Cirque du Soleil clown would say just before slipping into total dementia.

Cirque du Soleil has clowns?
.
.
.
.
.
Do they fart?

Do they have clowns?

Prepare to be entertained.

 

[Rhea]

Do they have clowns?

Prepare to be entertained.

Hunh, who knew. They’ve changed since I saw them.
I’ll take your word for it, I can’t download video.

 

[Underseer]

??

You made the declarative statement, “It seems to me that the weak hypothesis person has something to work with to become more knowledgeable whereas the "no hypothesis person is stuck in not knowing.”

An argument so weak as to be utterly unsupported - but nevertheless believed - will prevent one from seeking actual supporting evidence. Yes it is weaker as it contributes to a bias or eschewing further inquiry. It becomes a “pet theory,” or a “Little Darling,” and leads to the attempts to find only evidence that maches the Little Darling theory.

A lack of hypothesis will yield further inquiry. Yes it is stronger than a weak theory of dubious veracity that is clung to emotionally.

A weak hypothesis vs no hypothesis? No sale. Come back when you have something to work with.

I agree completely!

I have an explanation for why there is a god and you don't.

That is how we know that the space goat is real.

You just deny the existence of the space goat because you don't want to thank Him for creating God. Why do you hate the space goat?

Since you want to just assume that the space goat doesn't exist despite the fact that you have zero evidence that he doesn't, I'll ask you one more time:

Why does God exist?

My answer might be a hypothesis and have zero evidence behind it, but a weak hypothesis is better than admitting that you don't know something, therefore my answer is correct, therefore the space goat is real.

Why does God exist?

Why does God exist?

Why does God exist?

Why does God exist?