Interpretation has nothing to do with it. I know full well that Jesus said "nobody knows the day or the hour". I'm just saying that that doesn't necessarily  get him off the hook for being a false prophet. Just like if somebody was found at the scene of a murder, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are guilty. The first thing somebody does when they can't refute another person is accuse them of Sophistry. Can we just focus on argumetnts here, and not on accusations of people's minds being already made up? 

As far as your other argument goes, Yes I would love to talk about all of that! 

Scientifically speaking we are just a configuration of atoms and atoms don't care what configuration they are in so scientifically morality doesn't matter and it only matters to yourself.

This view disregards emergence. Scientifically speaking water is just a configuration of H2O atoms, and individually H2O atoms are not wet. Therefore wetness doesn't exist. The problem here, though is that the property of being wet emerges from the sheer number of H2O atoms involved. In other words a drop of water is more than the sum of it's parts. For all we know morality could be just like wetness in this sense. It could be something like conciousness or wetness that emerges from a collection of simpler building blocks. 

Since we could easily imagine a different configuration of atoms that had a completely different morality technically morality is completely arbitrary. 

But what we can easily imagine, and what is reality are two different things. I could easily imagine living inside a black hole, but in reality that's impossible.

Only people care and people are their own unique configurations of atoms so if your an atheist it is pointless to wonder whether God existence is important or to even ask for proof of Gods existence because you can't even proof that you exist.  

Rene Decartes might have had something to say about that. His argument "I think, therefore I am." shows that anybody can easily prove their own existance in a single sentence. What is harder to prove, is whether or not *other* people exist. You have to make the assumption that what your eyes and ears are relaying to you is indeed reality. What if I'm just a computer simulation, and you're the only real human being in it? How do you know that any of the world is real besides yourself? In Decartes' day some people said that you might as well give up and assume that only you exist. But if only you exist, then why argue with others in the first place? After all they are just simulations right? Someone else argued a long time ago, that since we argue with others we accept that they and the world around us exist. After all all arguments need evidene, and if the evidence isn't real, then the argument is pointless. If the person you are presenting the evidence to isn't real, then the argument is doubly pointless!

Say you were cut in half vertically and almost instantaneously through extremely advanced technology each half was fixed to regenerate their missing halves. Now which one is you? Using this one example it becomes clear that there is no logical or scientific construction that can prove your existence apart from the configuration of your atoms. So there could be a million copies of you all exactly the same and there would be no way for you to tell the difference. 

Oooh, now we're getting somewhere! This is an excellent question. I think the answer to this question is that *both* are you. They are just different versions of you. For example: Let's say you bought the Witcher 3 off of GoG, and then made a copy of it to give to a friend. Which game is The Witcher 3, and which game is just a copy of The Witcher 3? Well the correct answer is that *both* the copy and the original are equally The Witcher 3. They are just different versions or copies of the same game. 

Also, I don't think this cut in half thought experiment proves that you can't prove your existance. Instead if proves that you can't prove your uniqueness. After being cut in half and regenerated do you exist? Yes. Are you unique? No! There's another version of you!

 One atom isn't any more important than any other. So as long as you who are mere configurations of atoms, which aren't any important then each individual atoms, continue to exist; don't fool yourself that you know anything. If you did know anything it would just be an accident based on the random motion of atoms based on the pointless unpredictable reality of quantum mechanics, so you can't actually prove anything because there is no fundamental reality that can distinguished between configurations of atoms that can know truth and those that don't. Because after all what reason is there that everything that you know could have been different, the whole universe could have been different.

But who says that knowledge needs to be justified in order to qualify as knowledge? Let's say that Dan is a murderer. John believes that Dan is a murderer because he saw Dan murder Sue. Joe believes that Dan is a murderer because he hates Dan's guts, and just wants to believe it. Does John *know* that Dan is a murderer? Does Joe *know* that Dan is a murderer? I would argue that they *both* know. Knowledge is just a belief that happens to be right. Just because John has real evidence, and Joe does not, doesn't change that fact. 

To apply that to your question about whether or not a random collection of atoms (us) knows something... Knowledge, whether on purpose or by accident is still knowledge. Also, who says that quantum mechanics are purely random? Who says that atoms are purely random? For all we know Quantum mechanics is deterministic just like regular physics. But if the world were proven to be deterministic, you'd be questioning whether or not we can know anything at all, since our beliefs are determined by the rules of physics. The answer to both scenarios is that knowledge isn't anything special. You can't say that Joe's knowledge doesn't *count*, and you can't say that the knowledge of a random or determined group of atoms doesn't *count*. 

Of course that is unless you reject the fundamental premise that there is nothing but atoms and energy. But then what would that be. If you are still reading this and are an atheist ask yourself why would you reply? Why does anything matter. Why would one configuration of atoms that has no control of its own configuration's past and consequently its future, attempt to try and change the configuration of another set of atoms when you can't prove that one configuration is more important than another? 

This is an important question. I dont' know the answer, but I know a few philosophers that have attempted an answer in the past. Daniel Dennett is one of them. I'm going to read his book called Elbow Room, and I suggest you do too. 

But I'm also going to turn the question around on you. If you are a religious person, how does the existance of a diety solve any of this? If we are really just souls (immaterial minds) trapped inside bodies, then how exactly do these immaterial minds have free will? What if we aren't just a collection of atoms, but there is no God anyway? What if our freewill emerges from the collection of our random atoms, in the same way that wetness emerges from the collection of water molecules? What if our very consioucness  emerges as well? Who says that Atheism is strictly materialistic, and deterministic? 

"all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?

how does acknowledging that people have associated certain values with gods a fallacy? lol

is this not historical fact?

"97% of matter being invisible proving that the supernatural exists is also another "God of the Gaps" fallacy because you don't provide the link nor have you proved the causality."

well as far as i know the supernatural is defined as anything outside of the limits of our abilities of perception so...

here is the definition : "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

and again i have to ask... do you truly believe that we are currently at the apex of understanding of the universe and will never in the future find phenomena that were outside of the limits of our perception? if so you are exceeding arrogant without justification for it

"Claiming that we cannot have objective reality"

i did by accident in my original post and corrected it to "morality"

are you reffering to morailty or reality?

with regards to morality i stand by that claim

"You first make a "God of the Gaps" fallacy and attempt to support it with unproven assertions"

you would do well to list the unproven assertions i've made btw

The point is that why should we talk about the possible words and nature of God which  if he existed would be the most complicated thing you could imagine, if you can't even prove that your own thoughts are valid.  You can't prove any basic asmptions that you have scientificly, scientificly it is a fact that qantum mecanics are random, but for the more philosofical qestions you are apealing to your own brain whitch is unreliable. If I could see you in person it might be worth my time to counter your points, like just because something is a  emergent property dosen't make it meaningful or more important. You had interesting points, but I knew about every single one because all of them were brought up in the philosopy course I took and the profesor reject each one as an explanation for meaning. The course from The Great Courses "The big questions of Philosopy by David K. Johnson" if you are interested.  You seemed to misunderstand a part of every question I asked, but was interesting. The main point is that the why if you can't explain why things are important scientificly how do we convice each other of anything if it is all opinion. If I say that this is pointless and a waste of my time there is no proof that can be brought up to say I am wrong and If I promise that I will leave and never come back to this website and you still reply knowing I won't read it why?

I would like to explain theology to you, but that would take a lot loger over the internet than in person and I realy can do much more productive things with my time.  So let me simplify it for you God is Goodness and you should do everything for Goodness sake and I know that I will never understand everything about God and that I will never be 100% certain about anything even "I think therfore I am" is not certain, but I belive just as much as I belive in logic that there is a God of Good, Truth and Love that transends our universe or at least these are concepts that have real existance that I can't imagine.

This is goodbye forever you will die I will die and we will never hear from each other again.  "The universe is forgeting you, and the universe is being forgotten and there is nothing to remember it." Of course unless there is something anything that is the source of meaning that dosen't depend on atoms energy space or time all of whitch will cease to exist. 

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Matthew 24:35"Intereting that jesus was right about that 2000 years ago and atheiests thought the usiverse was eternal at least until farily recently when scientists proved otherwise,but if you choose not to belive in science what can I do, but waste more of my time, whitch I choose not to do. 

I already listed the unproven assertions. It's your problem that you can't read. The burden of proof rests on the person making the positive claim. You also have not proven the causality yet since correlation does not mean causation.

""all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god"

can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?"

lol so your lack of a response shows you can't actually elaborate on how this uses the god of the gaps fallacy? 

isn't that a proof by assertion fallacy? lol

to reiterate the positive claim i made is historical fact in that throughout history values have been attributed to gods

the other positive claim i made is that objective morality is impossible without the concept of a god and so far no one including you has been able to raise a counterargument

"You also have not proven the causality yet since correlation does not mean causation."

and this is in regards to what exactly?

are you really a moderator?

the other positive claim i made is that objective morality is impossible without the concept of a god and so far no one including you has been able to raise a counterargument.

and this is in regards to what exactly?

are you really a moderator?

Aura7541 said:

 Round and round the fallacious carousel you go...

So you resorted to the same old Proof by Assertion and refuse to address your God of the Gaps fallacy. Looks like you have resorted to the Argument from Silence fallacy, too. So let's just recap. Your claims are solely dependent on Proof by Assertion and the God of the Gaps fallacies. When asked to prove your assertions to be correct, you have not fulfilled your burden of proof as you have provided absolutely zero citations and no direct evidence, and you also resorted to the ad nauseaum fallacy. And as the cherry on top, you responded to my continued skepticism with an Argument from Silence fallacy. Your thinking process is extremely predicable and can be easily refuted, so feel free to put in your last sophist words because the fallacious carousel is not my kind of ride.

The burden of proof is yours. If you claim that somebody has made a fallacy, then you need to demonstrate that they have. Explain how his arguments are "God of the gaps fallacies", or leave the thread. Hell, I don't even think that God of the Gaps is an official fallacy at all. It's just a buzzword thrown around by certain people. Here check for yourself, it isn't listed. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html 

The sad thing here is that I'm on your side, but I have to call a spade a spade. You are throwing around claims of fallacies left and right without supporting them at all. 

I don't believe there is any official list of fallacies.  What you're probably referring to is the non-exhaustive categories of logical fallacies that we tend to address.  But, beyond those broad fallacies, there can be specific variations in regards to certain subjects.

The god of the gap fallacy (usually referred to as god of the gaps argument, but lets not split hairs) is a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy.  For example, we can't (although I'd say we can) determine where morality comes from exactly, so it must be god.  And he pointed out exactly where the fallacy was used several times.  When you say "100 years ago using radio waves for communication would've made you a witch.. you really think that in 100 years we won't uncover more hidden aspects of reality"  that is basically a textbook example of argument from ignorance.