Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Best argument from the other side?

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:09:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theists, what do you think is the best argument for theism? Atheists, what do you think is the best argument for theism? What do you think is the best argument for the other position?
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:12:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theism:

Ontological Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument.

Atheism:

Problem of Evil. I've never been even remotely convinced by any of the other arguments.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 10:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:12:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Theism:

Ontological Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument.

Atheism:

Problem of Evil. I've never been even remotely convinced by any of the other arguments.

You know, I never understood the Ontological Argument. I think the others work fine though.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 3:39:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheism:

The fine-tuning argument for Atheism, Paul Drapers's problem of evil, and Models of cosmic origins which work without a presupposed background space-time or cause.

Theism:

Kalam Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, Teleological Argument.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 3:55:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theism: I think that "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is thought provoking. However, I reject it because I do not think a supernatural explanation should be used to explain the unknown.

Atheism: Reading religious scripture and noticing their contradiction and ridiculous claims is convincing. Also, the problem of evil.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 3:58:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:55:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Theism: I think that "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is thought provoking. However, I reject it because I do not think a supernatural explanation should be used to explain the unknown.

Atheism: Reading religious scripture and noticing their contradiction and ridiculous claims is convincing. Also, the problem of evil.

Reading religious scripture and noticing their contradiction and ridiculous claims is convincing.
To who? where? Who is reading them? How can a non-theist relate to a theist application?
TheAsylum
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:04:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:45:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Theism: Personnel experience, virtue, Biblical principles.

Atheism: Free thinking

How are these arguments?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:08:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:56:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
You know, I never understood the Ontological Argument.

+1

I also think the Ontological argument is ridiculous.

Probably because you don't understand it.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:09:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:04:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 3:45:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Theism: Personnel experience, virtue, Biblical principles.

Atheism: Free thinking

How are these arguments?

Because they are true. Are they not? Can you tell I di not exsperience God? Or anyone else for that matter? The Bible holds virtue and morality. They are principles to live by. This says truth to me. It does not have to for you. But have no right to tell me that is not a reason or arguement.
Free thinking away from dogma is the only thing I repsect about atheism. I repsect atheist. But I do not respect the ability to ignore or refuse the signs from live of a God.
TheAsylum
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:09:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 10:25:19 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/30/2012 10:12:09 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
Theism:

Ontological Argument, Kalam Cosmological Argument, Moral Argument.

Atheism:

Problem of Evil. I've never been even remotely convinced by any of the other arguments.

You know, I never understood the Ontological Argument. I think the others work fine though.

It's hard to understand. That's why it's not too convincing. But I've never heard any really convincing arguments that refute the argument.
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:10:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:08:38 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
At 5/31/2012 3:56:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
You know, I never understood the Ontological Argument.

+1

I also think the Ontological argument is ridiculous.

Probably because you don't understand it.

Ever understood Kant's rebuttal? And if you aren't convinced, then you don't understand it. Because that's how stuff works nowadays :P I've had a rant again... :D
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:18:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:09:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:04:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 3:45:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Theism: Personnel experience, virtue, Biblical principles.

Atheism: Free thinking

How are these arguments?

Because they are true. Are they not? Can you tell I di not exsperience God? Or anyone else for that matter? The Bible holds virtue and morality. They are principles to live by. This says truth to me. It does not have to for you. But have no right to tell me that is not a reason or arguement.

Lol. I have a right to say anything I want.

You don't know what an argument is. An argument is a demonstration that something is either true or false. Arguments consist of 1 or more premises and 1 conclusion. What you listed aren't arguments.

Free thinking away from dogma is the only thing I repsect about atheism. I repsect atheist. But I do not respect the ability to ignore or refuse the signs from live of a God.

Free thinking isn't an argument though. It's a virtue to be sure, but not an argument.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:20:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:18:41 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:09:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:04:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 3:45:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Theism: Personnel experience, virtue, Biblical principles.

Atheism: Free thinking

How are these arguments?

Because they are true. Are they not? Can you tell I di not exsperience God? Or anyone else for that matter? The Bible holds virtue and morality. They are principles to live by. This says truth to me. It does not have to for you. But have no right to tell me that is not a reason or arguement.

Lol. I have a right to say anything I want.

You don't know what an argument is. An argument is a demonstration that something is either true or false. Arguments consist of 1 or more premises and 1 conclusion. What you listed aren't arguments.


Free thinking away from dogma is the only thing I repsect about atheism. I repsect atheist. But I do not respect the ability to ignore or refuse the signs from live of a God.

Free thinking isn't an argument though. It's a virtue to be sure, but not an argument.

I think I have thousands of years of demostration. You just refuse it. That aint my problems.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:27:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:56:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
You know, I never understood the Ontological Argument.

+1

I also think the Ontological argument is ridiculous.

That may be, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Is there a certain reason you find it ridiculous?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:29:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:20:56 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:18:41 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:09:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:04:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 3:45:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Theism: Personnel experience, virtue, Biblical principles.

Atheism: Free thinking

How are these arguments?

Because they are true. Are they not? Can you tell I di not exsperience God? Or anyone else for that matter? The Bible holds virtue and morality. They are principles to live by. This says truth to me. It does not have to for you. But have no right to tell me that is not a reason or arguement.

Lol. I have a right to say anything I want.

You don't know what an argument is. An argument is a demonstration that something is either true or false. Arguments consist of 1 or more premises and 1 conclusion. What you listed aren't arguments.


Free thinking away from dogma is the only thing I repsect about atheism. I repsect atheist. But I do not respect the ability to ignore or refuse the signs from live of a God.

Free thinking isn't an argument though. It's a virtue to be sure, but not an argument.

I think I have thousands of years of demostration. You just refuse it. That aint my problems.

I haven't refused anything. I'm just trying to help you understand how thinking works.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:38:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:29:48 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:20:56 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:18:41 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:09:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 5/31/2012 4:04:35 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 5/31/2012 3:45:05 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Theism: Personnel experience, virtue, Biblical principles.

Atheism: Free thinking

How are these arguments?

Because they are true. Are they not? Can you tell I di not exsperience God? Or anyone else for that matter? The Bible holds virtue and morality. They are principles to live by. This says truth to me. It does not have to for you. But have no right to tell me that is not a reason or arguement.

Lol. I have a right to say anything I want.

You don't know what an argument is. An argument is a demonstration that something is either true or false. Arguments consist of 1 or more premises and 1 conclusion. What you listed aren't arguments.


Free thinking away from dogma is the only thing I repsect about atheism. I repsect atheist. But I do not respect the ability to ignore or refuse the signs from live of a God.

Free thinking isn't an argument though. It's a virtue to be sure, but not an argument.

I think I have thousands of years of demostration. You just refuse it. That aint my problems.

I haven't refused anything. I'm just trying to help you understand how thinking works.

Thank you.
TheAsylum
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:52:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Probably because you don't understand it.

I understand the Ontological argument as...Imagine the greatest god possible. The only thing greater than it would be if it existed in real life.

My rebuttal is imagine the greatest leprechaun(or any other thing) possible, the only thing greater then this leprechaun is if it existed in real life. Just because you think of something in your head, does not mean it exists in real life.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 4:59:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:52:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Just because you think of something in your head, does not mean it exists in real life.
Prove it doesnt.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 4:52:38 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
Probably because you don't understand it.

I understand the Ontological argument as...Imagine the greatest god possible. The only thing greater than it would be if it existed in real life.

My rebuttal is imagine the greatest leprechaun(or any other thing) possible, the only thing greater then this leprechaun is if it existed in real life. Just because you think of something in your head, does not mean it exists in real life.

You should look into the modal ontological argument, I think your objection is based off of a classical version. Either way, I'm not sure how leprechauns could be maximally great in the first place considering they are just a type of fairy in Irish folklore.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:06:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:56:32 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
You know, I never understood the Ontological Argument.

+1

I also think the Ontological argument is ridiculous.

Not understanding something is not the same as thinking it is ridiculous.

I am in no position to call an argument I can't understand ridiculous.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:07:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That may be, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Is there a certain reason you find it ridiculous?

Yes. Just because something can be conceived as existing, does not mean it actually exists. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Fill in anything else for "God". Like "magic wand, faerie, wizard, dragon", and it is the same argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and I don't really understand why anyone thinks it does?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:22:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 5:07:01 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
That may be, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Is there a certain reason you find it ridiculous?

Yes. Just because something can be conceived as existing, does not mean it actually exists. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Fill in anything else for "God". Like "magic wand, faerie, wizard, dragon", and it is the same argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and I don't really understand why anyone thinks it does?

Many theists don't even believe a being like "God" could even be conceived of, and reject that version. I'm pretty sure, the simplest and more compelling version is this one:

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Now you may have problems with premise P3 off the bat, but remember, if a maximally great being exists and only exists in one possible world, then it's not a maximally great being because a maximally great being exists in every possible world (because, well, that's greater). Thus, if it's possible for a maximally great being to exist then he must exist in every possible world. However, in modal logic, if something exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.

So, would you care to explain what part of this you have a problem with?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:26:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheism: at best leaves a vagueness of reality
1) EPoE
2) Divine Hiddenness

Theism: at best leaves a coherent hope of an ultimate reality
Rational Warrant
1) Cosmo Arguments
2) Argument from Miracles: Christ's resurrection
Existential Warrant
1) Strong preference of theism due to a sound ontology for human dignity
2) Strong preference of theism due to a sound ontology for human meaning / purpose

Regarding the ontological argument (OA), it's been said that nobody has ever been converted by it. Nevertheless, I still think how the OA defines God is useful: a maximally great or supreme being... or as Anselm put it, the greatest conceivable being.

My apologia is humble, it basically claims that Christian theism is reasonable enough, but highly existentially preferable... & since our existential preference is more obvious to us, then insofar as Christianity is reasonable--it ought to be preferred over other beliefs.

And if you think about it this makes sense- if God were interested in a relationship with us, he would much rather be preferred than deduced.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:31:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You should look into the modal ontological argument, I think your objection is based off of a classical version. Either way, I'm not sure how leprechauns could be maximally great in the first place considering they are just a type of fairy in Irish folklore.

Cool, never heard of the modal ontological argument. Thanks for showing it too me. I read it and think it is equally (if not more) unconvincing as the other one. It is a mindfuck that uses double negatives and extra words like "necessarily" to appear true.The seventh premise "It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist." is false. "It is the case that God necessarily exists" is the non-negative version of the sentence. Obviously this premise cannot be shown. Also substitute any other mythological figure/thing (titan, Buhda, Atlantis, fountain of youth ect.) and the argument works.

Also, of course a maximally great leprecahaun can be imagined. The one with the most gold, the shiniest rainbow and has the best potatoes. Irish folklore? God is just Middle east folklore that was past down, right?.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:39:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 3:39:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Atheism:

The fine-tuning argument for Atheism, Paul Drapers's problem of evil, and Models of cosmic origins which work without a presupposed background space-time or cause.

May I ask what models of cosmic origins you've read about which don't require a cause? Maybe a list or web-page. Thanks-
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:47:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

Many theists don't even believe a being like "God" could even be conceived of, and reject that version. I'm pretty sure, the simplest and more compelling version is this one:

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Now you may have problems with premise P3 off the bat, but remember, if a maximally great being exists and only exists in one possible world, then it's not a maximally great being because a maximally great being exists in every possible world (because, well, that's greater). Thus, if it's possible for a maximally great being to exist then he must exist in every possible world. However, in modal logic, if something exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.

So, would you care to explain what part of this you have a problem with?

haha I looked up another version of this in my last post. This is the best argument because it appears there are infinite versions of it and one has to work haha.

Premise 2 is false. Unless possible world includes "imaginary world". It is unknown if God exists. So it seems you can't say he exists in "some world" just because it is possible he exists.

Also I do not understand what you mean by "possible worlds". There is only one world, right?
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2012 5:50:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/31/2012 5:47:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Many theists don't even believe a being like "God" could even be conceived of, and reject that version. I'm pretty sure, the simplest and more compelling version is this one:

P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Now you may have problems with premise P3 off the bat, but remember, if a maximally great being exists and only exists in one possible world, then it's not a maximally great being because a maximally great being exists in every possible world (because, well, that's greater). Thus, if it's possible for a maximally great being to exist then he must exist in every possible world. However, in modal logic, if something exists in every possible world then it exists in the actual world.

So, would you care to explain what part of this you have a problem with?

haha I looked up another version of this in my last post. This is the best argument because it appears there are infinite versions of it and one has to work haha.


Premise 2 is false. Unless possible world includes "imaginary world". It is unknown if God exists. So it seems you can't say he exists in "some world" just because it is possible he exists.

Also I do not understand what you mean by "possible worlds". There is only one world, right?

P2 is uncontroversial among philosophers, it's really just P1. I take arms against P3 mostly.

But a possible world is just a maximal description of the way reality might be. It contains all true conjuncts. It's important to understand the modern developments in modal logic along woth possible world semantics before dismantling the argument.