Dr. Lane Craig using Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel argument

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture


It's become a sort of mantra for him. Clearly he won't or can't grasp that his unevidenced belief isn't remotely validated, just because no one has s contrary claim. This this latest piece of meaningless rhetoric is being repeated with the erroneous belief it is valid until someone proves otherwise.

Yet when asked directly he can't explain how it evidences a deity, has admitted he has no objective evidence for any deity, and is happy to use irrational arguments for his belief in a deity with the fatuous phrase "it's good enough for me" repeated ad nauseam.

It's not like we haven't been here before, but I'm always slightly amazed that people can choose to be so wilfully ignorant.

TheFlyingPig's picture
. Gibberish . You would have

. Gibberish . You would have your curiosity stirred by some limbs mysteriously growing and yet you call the beginning of physical reality Gibberish ?
I am not demanding anything from anybody . Creation is evidence enough for me of a creator . I don’t need anything else . If you people need something like limbs growing mysteriously or whatever else , good luck , creation itself works for me ( unless of course you or anybody else have an alternate answer that I can lay my hat on )

Sheldon's picture
Creation is evidence enough

Creation is evidence enough for me of a creator.

What creation? You're simply using an argument from assertion fallacy, you've already admitted you cannot evidence this. Your argument uses a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, thus it is illogical by definition.

And you certainly have demanded repeatedly that people offer contradictory explanations to your biblical myth for the origins of the universe, then claimed it's valid if they can't, which is that fallacy.

I can only assume you're trolling now.

Nyarlathotep's picture
TheFlyingPig - ...you call

TheFlyingPig - ...you call the beginning of physical reality Gibberish?

I did no such thing. I asked why you were spamming a gibberish quote.

TheFlyingPig's picture
Lots of bollocks around I’d

Lots of bollocks around I’d say .
I admit it , I made the quote up about the “ Big Bang “ . Was I close ?

Nyarlathotep's picture
TheFlyingPig - I admit it , I

TheFlyingPig - I admit it , I made the quote up about the “Big Bang“. Was I close?

Close to what? The Big Bang theory? Sounds very different, imo.

TheFlyingPig - Lots of bollocks around I’d say.

That is what tends to happen when you make up some gibberish and strawman the responses you get from the gibberish. GIGO.


Attach Image/Video?: 

Sheldon's picture
Lots of bollocks around I’d

Lots of bollocks around I’d say

That's hardly an argument now is it, especially since it's you who's talking bollocks anyway.

I admit it , I made the quote up

Well there you go, quelle surprise.

Sheldon's picture
Maybe TheFlyingPig is about

Maybe TheFlyingPig is about to have epiphany? Like Saul going to Damascus, except he's about to realise in a moment of true clarity there is no light, never was any light, and never will be any light. Well, not beyond any natural phenomena anyway.

I jest of course, but seriously TheFlyingPig, it must be obvious to you by now that your argument demanding people offer an alternative to your unevidenced claim for a creator deity, is in fact a known logical fallacy, and therefore is by definition irrational. So why are you persevering with endless repetition? The principles of logic remain the same, the posters challenging your irrational argument won't be swayed by irrational fallacies. You have admitted that you have no objective evidence, and can't explain why or how your claims evidence an extant deity? ? ?

So firstly what is it you hope to gain through repetition of the fallacy, and secondly if you are prepared to believe something based on a logical fallacy, and for which you have no objective evidence, what do you gain from such an obvious self enforced delusion? Is it fear of losing the comfort or uplift your beliefs bring you? If so then I question your rationale in bringing them repeatedly to an atheist debate forum, where they can only be subjected to rational critical scrutiny.

Sheldon's picture


That is a link to a thread on common logical fallacies, in the new forum. I suggest TheFlyingPig goes there as it will be invaluable to him.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.