Total Posts:60|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ontological argument

kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 11:15:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.
Think about an apple for a second................done? Now think about an apple that exists.
It is a very simplistic analogy but it captures what puzzled the likes of Hume, Kant and Russell about existence as a predicate.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 11:47:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Think about an apple for a second................done? Now think about an apple that exists.
It is a very simplistic analogy but it captures what puzzled the likes of Hume, Kant and Russell about existence as a predicate.

I am sure this is going to be a stupid question on my part haha

Sorry, I'm a bit slow with this stuff. Is the point that you can think up an apple that isn't real?
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 11:52:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 11:47:00 AM, kasmic wrote:
Think about an apple for a second................done? Now think about an apple that exists.
It is a very simplistic analogy but it captures what puzzled the likes of Hume, Kant and Russell about existence as a predicate.

I am sure this is going to be a stupid question on my part haha

Sorry, I'm a bit slow with this stuff. Is the point that you can think up an apple that isn't real?
The point is that existence is not a property, it adds nothing to an object. Existence is the instantiation of properties.
That is why in formal logic we have an existential quantifier.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 11:55:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 11:52:34 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/22/2015 11:47:00 AM, kasmic wrote:
Think about an apple for a second................done? Now think about an apple that exists.
It is a very simplistic analogy but it captures what puzzled the likes of Hume, Kant and Russell about existence as a predicate.

I am sure this is going to be a stupid question on my part haha

Sorry, I'm a bit slow with this stuff. Is the point that you can think up an apple that isn't real?
The point is that existence is not a property, it adds nothing to an object. Existence is the instantiation of properties.
That is why in formal logic we have an existential quantifier.

I see.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 11:55:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 11:47:00 AM, kasmic wrote:
Think about an apple for a second................done? Now think about an apple that exists.
It is a very simplistic analogy but it captures what puzzled the likes of Hume, Kant and Russell about existence as a predicate.

I am sure this is going to be a stupid question on my part haha

Sorry, I'm a bit slow with this stuff. Is the point that you can think up an apple that isn't real?
I tried to illustrate this by showing that there is no sensible difference between thinking about an apple that exists on one that does not. So yeah, you're right.
Unless of course you are Mykhiel who basically claimed that he thought about the platonic form of the apple and then an imperfect existing one.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 12:14:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

1. Imagine the most horrible monster you can.
2. It is more horrible if it exists rather than doesn't exist.
3. Therefore, this horrible monster exists.
kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 12:18:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 12:14:24 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

1. Imagine the most horrible monster you can.
2. It is more horrible if it exists rather than doesn't exist.
3. Therefore, this horrible monster exists.

That's more of the thought I had when I read it haha...
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 1:51:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Even if we're to grant existence is a predicate, I still hold issue with 1.
People don't conceive the same "greatest conceivable being".
kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:08:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 1:51:17 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Even if we're to grant existence is a predicate, I still hold issue with 1.
People don't conceive the same "greatest conceivable being".

You mean we don't envision God the same way!? jk haha
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 2:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Most syllogisms on this site get a few laughs and a lot of disagreement. Philosophy is little more than esoteric opinion, and any secular approach to dealing with the concept of God is ultimately going to find a godless existence.

Is the web the only place you can satisfy your interests? Do not the scriptures also offer interesting arguments for and against the existence of God?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
kasmic
Posts: 1,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 2:36:26 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Most syllogisms on this site get a few laughs and a lot of disagreement. Philosophy is little more than esoteric opinion, and any secular approach to dealing with the concept of God is ultimately going to find a godless existence.

Is the web the only place you can satisfy your interests? Do not the scriptures also offer interesting arguments for and against the existence of God?

Well, I am a theist... and I suppose I take your point. If I believe that faith is required to believe in God than I do accept the notion that proving God's existence is impossible.

My curiosity is more in the way people construct and relay their arguments.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 2:36:26 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Most syllogisms on this site get a few laughs and a lot of disagreement. Philosophy is little more than esoteric opinion, and any secular approach to dealing with the concept of God is ultimately going to find a godless existence.

Is the web the only place you can satisfy your interests? Do not the scriptures also offer interesting arguments for and against the existence of God?

No, Scripture does not make arguments for or against the existence of God, In the Hebrew Bible there are no "proofs of" or arguments for God, the existence of god is a given.

The believer does not worship an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that philosophers devise for proving or disproving his likely existence. The basis of biblical faith is not inferential reason, It isn't analytical, it is experiential.. It rooted in encounter with a personal, moral, liberating, and transcendent power and presence..
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:23:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:00:49 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:36:26 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Most syllogisms on this site get a few laughs and a lot of disagreement. Philosophy is little more than esoteric opinion, and any secular approach to dealing with the concept of God is ultimately going to find a godless existence.

Is the web the only place you can satisfy your interests? Do not the scriptures also offer interesting arguments for and against the existence of God?

Well, I am a theist... and I suppose I take your point. If I believe that faith is required to believe in God than I do accept the notion that proving God's existence is impossible.

My curiosity is more in the way people construct and relay their arguments.

I have the same curiosity. My wife often wonders if it is a healthy one.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:04:06 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 5/22/2015 2:36:26 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 10:50:19 AM, kasmic wrote:
There have been many forums and debates lately dealing with the concept of God. My interested in this topic as increased tremendously. I have been looking around the web for arguments for and against the existence of God. This argument below caught my attention. What are your thoughts?

1.God is the greatest conceivable being.
2.It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3.Therefore, God exists.

Most syllogisms on this site get a few laughs and a lot of disagreement. Philosophy is little more than esoteric opinion, and any secular approach to dealing with the concept of God is ultimately going to find a godless existence.

Is the web the only place you can satisfy your interests? Do not the scriptures also offer interesting arguments for and against the existence of God?

No, Scripture does not make arguments for or against the existence of God, In the Hebrew Bible there are no "proofs of" or arguments for God, the existence of god is a given.

And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

The believer does not worship an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that philosophers devise for proving or disproving his likely existence. The basis of biblical faith is not inferential reason, It isn't analytical, it is experiential.. It rooted in encounter with a personal, moral, liberating, and transcendent power and presence..

I completely agree.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:14:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.

So did you suddenly see the Flood as an act of love instead of an act of genocidal anger become an epic temper tantrum?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:22:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:14:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.

So did you suddenly see the Flood as an act of love instead of an act of genocidal anger become an epic temper tantrum?

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:27:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:22:57 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.

So did you suddenly see the Flood as an act of love instead of an act of genocidal anger become an epic temper tantrum?

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

In other words you completely changed the story in you own head because there's no mention of it being local, none of any of those outside the Ark being anything but evil and iniquitous, and none of any kind of restitution for the innocent since, according to the story, the entire world but Noah was fallen away from godliness.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:48:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:27:33 PM, dhardage wrote:

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

In other words you completely changed the story in you own head because there's no mention of it being local, none of any of those outside the Ark being anything but evil and iniquitous, and none of any kind of restitution for the innocent since, according to the story, the entire world but Noah was fallen away from godliness.

No: http://www.debate.org...
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:51:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:48:24 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:27:33 PM, dhardage wrote:

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

In other words you completely changed the story in you own head because there's no mention of it being local, none of any of those outside the Ark being anything but evil and iniquitous, and none of any kind of restitution for the innocent since, according to the story, the entire world but Noah was fallen away from godliness.

No: http://www.debate.org...

So it was pretty much an exaggeration? Are you saying that your holy book is not the literal word of your god?
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:52:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:22:57 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.

So did you suddenly see the Flood as an act of love instead of an act of genocidal anger become an epic temper tantrum?

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 4:55:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:51:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:48:24 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:27:33 PM, dhardage wrote:

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

In other words you completely changed the story in you own head because there's no mention of it being local, none of any of those outside the Ark being anything but evil and iniquitous, and none of any kind of restitution for the innocent since, according to the story, the entire world but Noah was fallen away from godliness.

No: http://www.debate.org...

So it was pretty much an exaggeration? Are you saying that your holy book is not the literal word of your god?

No. You're saying it was an exaggeration. It's not my book. I'm saying that it was inspired by God, but written my imperfect men. Do I believe it is all "literal"? No.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 4:52:38 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:22:57 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.

So did you suddenly see the Flood as an act of love instead of an act of genocidal anger become an epic temper tantrum?

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?

Yes. But have we established that older writings automatically mean older story?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 5:01:15 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:52:38 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:22:57 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:14:04 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 5/22/2015 4:01:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:53:35 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/22/2015 3:25:49 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
And yet atheists consistently use the Bible to argue against the existence of God.

There is a reason for that. From a scientific perspective, a theory or idea is debunked or otherwise required attention if there is a problem with it. Even one. When someone who is of such a mindset see something that indicates a problem in the idea (Christianity), such as a contradiction, then that problem needs to be answered for if the idea is to hold merit.

Imagine a long, free-standing length of wall. Well, the theory is that it is a wall. Now, if we were to throw 10,000 rocks at that wall, we would expect that each of the rocks should strike the wall and fall to the ground, as per the properties of a wall. Now, say a single rock somehow manages to end up unexplainably on the other side of the wall. That one rock is a problem that puts the entire wall theory into serious question, and is what rightfully receives the attention.

I am currently atheist (lack of belief, not belief to the contrary). I am so because I have searched as unbiasedly as I could to find evidence or a reason to believe that god exists; all I have found is problems with the idea, like rocks that passed through the wall. So when I bring up such a problem, I am doing so in order to maybe get an answer, or bring that problem to the attention to others; not to attack the idea.

At 15, I read the Bible (cover to cover) with a mindset against God's existence, looking to support that mindset. At 19, I read the Bible (again, cover to cover) with a mindset knowing God exists. They were two entirely different books.

So did you suddenly see the Flood as an act of love instead of an act of genocidal anger become an epic temper tantrum?

No, I saw it as very likely being a local event as opposed to a global one, sent (with ample warning) by a God who views death as a continuation and change of life, as opposed to an end of it. A God who can make acceptable restitution when He causes it to rain on the innocent along with the guilty.

Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?

Yes. But have we established that older writings automatically mean older story?

No, but there is no evidence that the Noah flood story existed even close to the same time as the flood of Gilgamesh.

Also, if there are 2 stories with A LOT of similarities (like Gilgamesh and Noah floods), one came before the other, and the author of the latter could easily have had access to the former, then it is more parsimonious that the latter is inspired by the former.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 5:35:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?

Yes. But have we established that older writings automatically mean older story?

No, but there is no evidence that the Noah flood story existed even close to the same time as the flood of Gilgamesh.

Do we have any evidence in regards to these stories that is not controversial?

Also, if there are 2 stories with A LOT of similarities (like Gilgamesh and Noah floods), one came before the other, and the author of the latter could easily have had access to the former, then it is more parsimonious that the latter is inspired by the former.

How do we definitively determine which came before which?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 5:35:41 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?

Yes. But have we established that older writings automatically mean older story?

No, but there is no evidence that the Noah flood story existed even close to the same time as the flood of Gilgamesh.

Do we have any evidence in regards to these stories that is not controversial?

Both stories are about people displeasing god as a reason for the flood.
Both stories include a righteous man.
In both stories the righteous man was ordered to build an ark.
In both stories the Ark was filled with the righteous man, a few other people, and some members of all species.
Both stories have the flood caused by rain.
Both stories had the ark land in the middle east.
In both stories birds were used to find out if there was dry land.
In both stories a sacrifice was made after the flood by the righteous man.

There are some differences, but the similarities are what is important.

Also, if there are 2 stories with A LOT of similarities (like Gilgamesh and Noah floods), one came before the other, and the author of the latter could easily have had access to the former, then it is more parsimonious that the latter is inspired by the former.

How do we definitively determine which came before which?

Let's ASSUME that the flood happened as the most conservative Christians believe (and that Moses existed and wrote the Torah). That would put the flood at around 2350 BCE, but the Torah's story of it at around 1450 BCE.

The oldest fragments of the Flood of Gilgamesh is from about 2000 BCE (though it is thought to be much older).

This would make it inconclusive of which came first (if the flood DID happen, possibly the Hebrew, but if it didn't, possibly the Babylonian story).

Now, let's go with the historical consensus of the author of the Hebrew flood story.

Now, the Torah was written by different authors between 950 and 540 BCE based off Hebrew traditions.

Now, with it being that late, it becomes laughable to assume the Hebrew story came before the Babylonian one.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 6:22:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 6:07:20 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 5:35:41 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?

Yes. But have we established that older writings automatically mean older story?

No, but there is no evidence that the Noah flood story existed even close to the same time as the flood of Gilgamesh.

Do we have any evidence in regards to these stories that is not controversial?

Both stories are about people displeasing god as a reason for the flood.
Both stories include a righteous man.
In both stories the righteous man was ordered to build an ark.
In both stories the Ark was filled with the righteous man, a few other people, and some members of all species.
Both stories have the flood caused by rain.
Both stories had the ark land in the middle east.
In both stories birds were used to find out if there was dry land.
In both stories a sacrifice was made after the flood by the righteous man.

There are some differences, but the similarities are what is important.

Don't the similarities make it all the more controversial?

Also, if there are 2 stories with A LOT of similarities (like Gilgamesh and Noah floods), one came before the other, and the author of the latter could easily have had access to the former, then it is more parsimonious that the latter is inspired by the former.

How do we definitively determine which came before which?

Let's ASSUME that the flood happened as the most conservative Christians believe (and that Moses existed and wrote the Torah). That would put the flood at around 2350 BCE, but the Torah's story of it at around 1450 BCE.

The oldest fragments of the Flood of Gilgamesh is from about 2000 BCE (though it is thought to be much older).

This would make it inconclusive of which came first (if the flood DID happen, possibly the Hebrew, but if it didn't, possibly the Babylonian story).

Now, let's go with the historical consensus of the author of the Hebrew flood story.

Now, the Torah was written by different authors between 950 and 540 BCE based off Hebrew traditions.

Now, with it being that late, it becomes laughable to assume the Hebrew story came before the Babylonian one.

Can you definitively say that the earliest Hebrew writings are based purely on traditions?

Until you can, I wouldn't say anything is laughable.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2015 6:36:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/22/2015 6:22:06 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 5/22/2015 6:07:20 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/22/2015 5:35:41 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Doesn't it make note sense if the biblical flood was a retelling (with some changes) of the flood of Gilgamesh?

Yes. But have we established that older writings automatically mean older story?

No, but there is no evidence that the Noah flood story existed even close to the same time as the flood of Gilgamesh.

Do we have any evidence in regards to these stories that is not controversial?

Both stories are about people displeasing god as a reason for the flood.
Both stories include a righteous man.
In both stories the righteous man was ordered to build an ark.
In both stories the Ark was filled with the righteous man, a few other people, and some members of all species.
Both stories have the flood caused by rain.
Both stories had the ark land in the middle east.
In both stories birds were used to find out if there was dry land.
In both stories a sacrifice was made after the flood by the righteous man.

There are some differences, but the similarities are what is important.

Don't the similarities make it all the more controversial?

Not really. A lot of the Gospels are similar (very similar in some points), but that doesn't mean the stories happened (as all gospels borrowed from Mark or a source that used Mark).

Also, if there are 2 stories with A LOT of similarities (like Gilgamesh and Noah floods), one came before the other, and the author of the latter could easily have had access to the former, then it is more parsimonious that the latter is inspired by the former.

How do we definitively determine which came before which?

Let's ASSUME that the flood happened as the most conservative Christians believe (and that Moses existed and wrote the Torah). That would put the flood at around 2350 BCE, but the Torah's story of it at around 1450 BCE.

The oldest fragments of the Flood of Gilgamesh is from about 2000 BCE (though it is thought to be much older).

This would make it inconclusive of which came first (if the flood DID happen, possibly the Hebrew, but if it didn't, possibly the Babylonian story).

Now, let's go with the historical consensus of the author of the Hebrew flood story.

Now, the Torah was written by different authors between 950 and 540 BCE based off Hebrew traditions.

Now, with it being that late, it becomes laughable to assume the Hebrew story came before the Babylonian one.

Can you definitively say that the earliest Hebrew writings are based purely on traditions?

Until you can, I wouldn't say anything is laughable.

The traditions MIGHT be based on something that happened, BUT when one considers that those traditions were passed down orally and over HUNDREDS of years and MANY generations, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that it can be an accurate story in the slightest.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO