Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Amazing!

ATHOS
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?
What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? The way to undo an insane conclusion is to consider the sanity of the premises on which it rests.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How long will contradiction stand when its impossible nature is clearly revealed?
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:35:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it.

The Fool: Bold assertion Fallacy.

This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

The Fool: You can't show what doesn't exist. because it doesn't exist. If you have to say how is it not? you are on the false side of the argument, for there first must be something to deny. But claims are claims. If you are so sure challenge me. And I will show that any notion of God is unclamable as knowledge. Why don't you answer my arguement from personal experience or from Incoherence.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:59:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:35:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it.

The Fool: Bold assertion Fallacy.

This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

The Fool: You can't show what doesn't exist. because it doesn't exist. If you have to say how is it not? you are on the false side of the argument, for there first must be something to deny. But claims are claims. If you are so sure challenge me. And I will show that any notion of God is unclamable as knowledge. Why don't you answer my arguement from personal experience or from Incoherence.

Athos made the bold assertion. I was simply replying to him.

I can't show what doesn't exist, but God does exist. Therefore there is evidence for His existence. You are begging the question when you say that God doesn't exist. You can't prove, nor disprove, God's existence. Even if every Theistic argument for God's existence fails, God may still exist.

I didn't say "how is it not?" I just said that this was a lousy argument against God's existence.

You are free to challenge me to a debate, if you wish. I will accept.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against. What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles. Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense. And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.

So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:19:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:59:38 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it.

The Fool: Bold assertion Fallacy.

This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

The Fool: You can't show what doesn't exist. because it doesn't exist. If you have to say how is it not? you are on the false side of the argument, for there first must be something to deny. But claims are claims. If you are so sure challenge me. And I will show that any notion of God is unclamable as knowledge. Why don't you answer my arguement from personal experience or from Incoherence.

Athos made the bold assertion. I was simply replying to him.

I can't show what doesn't exist, but God does exist.

The Fool: there is not evidence, nothing in the concept of a physical object, assert God.

KeytarHero wrote: Therefore there is evidence for His existence.

The Fool: No, not in that sense.

KeytarHero wrote: You are begging the question when you say that God doesn't exist.

The Fool: what is IS, For even God must exist to exist. that put this logical rule before God making God, subject to logic. Thus it could never be the case that God is the other of logic.

Secondly, what is not, does not exist. So it never makes sense to ask somebody to prove non-existence. Therefore the Burden of prove is alway son the positive side.

Even more clearly:
aka You can Either proof he exist or that he doesn't exist.
Non-exist can't proven for it doesn't exist. Therefore God must be proven.

Let A= Proof God exist. Let B=Proof God doesnt exist.
1P (A or B)
2P ~B
C1 therefore A!!
Q.E.D. (have a nice day!)

You can't prove, nor disprove, God's existence. Even if every Theistic argument for God's existence fails, God may still exist.

The Fool: This is an appeal to ignorance if we don't have knowledge of his existence we have knowledge that it is Possible.
NO!.
You cant go from nothing to possibility. 0->(0<x<1) NO! fallacy. From nothing comes nothing.
Q.E.D.

Come again. Line them up. and I will knock them down.

KeytarHero wrote:: I didn't say "how is it not?" I just said that this was a lousy argument against God's existence.

The Fool: yes it was.

KeytarHero wrote:: You are free to challenge me to a debate, if you wish. I will accept.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 4:23:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against.

The Fool: good give one.

KeytarHero: What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles.

The Fool: appeal to popularity. fallacy

KeytarHero: Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense.

The Fool: appeal to authority fallacy.

KeytarHero: And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.

KeytarHero : So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?

The Fool: One is argument from inconcievablity. Got take a look, I have put many out there. That no body could answer.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 10:43:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:35:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: You can't show what doesn't exist. because it doesn't exist.

Yes you can. Law of contradiction.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:06:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against. What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles. Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense. And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.

So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?

Obviously you'd believe there are better arguments for something you believe than against, but your initial claim was that there are no good arguments for non-belief. So which is it? Are non-believers fools, lying, delusional, being manipulated, or what?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 11:57:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:06:09 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against. What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles. Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense. And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.

So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?

Obviously you'd believe there are better arguments for something you believe than against, but your initial claim was that there are no good arguments for non-belief. So which is it? Are non-believers fools, lying, delusional, being manipulated, or what?

To my mind he seemed quite clear.

People do attack the plausibility of God's existence with argumentation. It is a justification of non belief. He was stating that such argumentation just is not valid. All of these atheistic assertions that 'God concept is not viable' have been put to rest.

He listed a few of them off the top of his head.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:00:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

1. There aren't any good arguments against unicorns either but that doesn't mean we should start believing in them.

2. It is not our duty to disprove him. It is entirely your burden of proof.

3. You say that all arguments against God are weak, so let me know when you refute every single one of these:

Argument From the Fact of Existence
Argument from Quantum Physics
The 5 Atheistic Teleological Arguments
Ontological Argument for the Non-Existence of God

Apathetic/Amoral God Paradox
Argument from Scale
Argument From the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Big Bang Cosmological Argument

Argument from the Hartle-Hawking Model
The Incoherency of ‘Divine Creation'
Argument from Evolution
Argument from Virtue

Argument from Correct Choice
The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 1
The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

The Immutability vs. Omniscience Argument
The Immutable vs. All-Loving Argument
The Transcendence vs. Omnipresence Argument
The Transcendence vs. Personhood Argument

The Nonphysical vs. Personal Argument
The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument
The Omniscient vs. Free Argument
The Justice vs. Mercy Argument

Argument from the Necessity of Naturalism
The Impossibility of Theistic and Christian Moral Principles
The Noncognitive Nature of Infinity
The Argument From Noncognitivism

The Euthyphro Dilemma
Process-Based Noncognitivism
Argument from Moral Autonomy
The Argument From Mind-Brain Dependence

Occam's Razor Argument
Epistemic Argument
The No-Reason Argument
Logical Problem of Evil

Evidential Problem of Evil
Inductive Argument from Evil
Soteriological Problem of Evil
Argument from Non-Belief/Divine Hiddenness

Argument from Miracles
Conflicts Between the Divine Attributes
Existentialist Argument (from The Impossibility of God)
Ignorance Argument

Argument from Personhood
Dimensional Argument
Argument from Locality
...And other Incoherency arguments, and pragmatic or methodological arguments

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:06:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 11:57:28 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:06:09 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against. What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles. Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense. And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.

So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?

Obviously you'd believe there are better arguments for something you believe than against, but your initial claim was that there are no good arguments for non-belief. So which is it? Are non-believers fools, lying, delusional, being manipulated, or what?

To my mind he seemed quite clear.

People do attack the plausibility of God's existence with argumentation. It is a justification of non belief. He was stating that such argumentation just is not valid. All of these atheistic assertions that 'God concept is not viable' have been put to rest.

He listed a few of them off the top of his head.

You misread. I'm discussing the motives, not the arguments.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:09:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:00:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

1. There aren't any good arguments against unicorns either but that doesn't mean we should start believing in them.

2. It is not our duty to disprove him. It is entirely your burden of proof.

3. You say that all arguments against God are weak, so let me know when you refute every single one of these:

Argument From the Fact of Existence
Argument from Quantum Physics
The 5 Atheistic Teleological Arguments
Ontological Argument for the Non-Existence of God

Apathetic/Amoral God Paradox
Argument from Scale
Argument From the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Big Bang Cosmological Argument

Argument from the Hartle-Hawking Model
The Incoherency of ‘Divine Creation'
Argument from Evolution
Argument from Virtue

Argument from Correct Choice
The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 1
The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

The Immutability vs. Omniscience Argument
The Immutable vs. All-Loving Argument
The Transcendence vs. Omnipresence Argument
The Transcendence vs. Personhood Argument

The Nonphysical vs. Personal Argument
The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument
The Omniscient vs. Free Argument
The Justice vs. Mercy Argument

Argument from the Necessity of Naturalism
The Impossibility of Theistic and Christian Moral Principles
The Noncognitive Nature of Infinity
The Argument From Noncognitivism

The Euthyphro Dilemma
Process-Based Noncognitivism
Argument from Moral Autonomy
The Argument From Mind-Brain Dependence

Occam's Razor Argument
Epistemic Argument
The No-Reason Argument
Logical Problem of Evil

Evidential Problem of Evil
Inductive Argument from Evil
Soteriological Problem of Evil
Argument from Non-Belief/Divine Hiddenness

Argument from Miracles
Conflicts Between the Divine Attributes
Existentialist Argument (from The Impossibility of God)
Ignorance Argument

Argument from Personhood
Dimensional Argument
Argument from Locality
...And other Incoherency arguments, and pragmatic or methodological arguments

.
.
.
.



.
.
.
.

What is the Big Bang Cosmological Argument, and what is the argument from evolution?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:23:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:00:29 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

1. There aren't any good arguments against unicorns either but that doesn't mean we should start believing in them.

Yes there is. We have contrary evidence against.


2. It is not our duty to disprove him. It is entirely your burden of proof.

When you make a value claim you do have a burden of proof.
If you say that hundreds of millions of theological scholars opinions or of no value, you must give warrant.


3. You say that all arguments against God are weak, so let me know when you refute every single one of these:

They have been all refuted.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:06:23 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:57:28 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 11:06:09 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against. What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles. Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense. And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.

So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?

Obviously you'd believe there are better arguments for something you believe than against, but your initial claim was that there are no good arguments for non-belief. So which is it? Are non-believers fools, lying, delusional, being manipulated, or what?

To my mind he seemed quite clear.

People do attack the plausibility of God's existence with argumentation. It is a justification of non belief. He was stating that such argumentation just is not valid. All of these atheistic assertions that 'God concept is not viable' have been put to rest.

He listed a few of them off the top of his head.

You misread. I'm discussing the motives, not the arguments.

Though, yes I did read that part, I am apparently not following.
He gave warrant did he not?
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:25:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:06:23 PM, Maikuru wrote:

You misread. I'm discussing the motives, not the arguments.

Though, yes I did read that part, I am apparently not following.
He gave warrant did he not?

I'm curious why arguments that have already been widely refuted still have such traction. Assuming non-believers are familiar with the counter arguments, what compels their continued denial?
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:36:50 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:25:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:06:23 PM, Maikuru wrote:

You misread. I'm discussing the motives, not the arguments.

Though, yes I did read that part, I am apparently not following.
He gave warrant did he not?

I'm curious why arguments that have already been widely refuted still have such traction. Assuming non-believers are familiar with the counter arguments, what compels their continued denial?

Interesting point. I am a convert to Christianity. I also have not found that many non believers who have shown a proficiency with the lines of argumentation. Upon the conclusion of any discussion it usually boils down to a lack of understanding or poor rationale.

I have found that theologians and philosophers are amazingly brilliant and capable.
I stand with William Lane Craig's statement the majority of non believers tend to be sophomores.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 12:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 12:45:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:36:50 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:25:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:06:23 PM, Maikuru wrote:

You misread. I'm discussing the motives, not the arguments.

Though, yes I did read that part, I am apparently not following.
He gave warrant did he not?

I'm curious why arguments that have already been widely refuted still have such traction. Assuming non-believers are familiar with the counter arguments, what compels their continued denial?

Interesting point. I am a convert to Christianity. I also have found that most non believers have shown a low proficiency with the lines of argumentation. Upon the conclusion of any discussion it usually boils down to a lack of understanding or poor rationale.

I have found that theologians and philosophers are amazingly brilliant and capable.
I stand with William Lane Craig's statement the majority of non believers tend to be sophomores.

Fixed
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:10:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 4:19:04 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:59:38 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it.

The Fool: Bold assertion Fallacy.

This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

The Fool: You can't show what doesn't exist. because it doesn't exist. If you have to say how is it not? you are on the false side of the argument, for there first must be something to deny. But claims are claims. If you are so sure challenge me. And I will show that any notion of God is unclamable as knowledge. Why don't you answer my arguement from personal experience or from Incoherence.

Athos made the bold assertion. I was simply replying to him.

I can't show what doesn't exist, but God does exist.

The Fool: there is not evidence, nothing in the concept of a physical object, assert God.

KeytarHero wrote: Therefore there is evidence for His existence.

The Fool: No, not in that sense.

KeytarHero wrote: You are begging the question when you say that God doesn't exist.

The Fool: what is IS, For even God must exist to exist. that put this logical rule before God making God, subject to logic. Thus it could never be the case that God is the other of logic.

Secondly, what is not, does not exist. So it never makes sense to ask somebody to prove non-existence. Therefore the Burden of prove is alway son the positive side.

Even more clearly:
aka You can Either proof he exist or that he doesn't exist.
Non-exist can't proven for it doesn't exist. Therefore God must be proven.

Let A= Proof God exist. Let B=Proof God doesnt exist.
1P (A or B)
2P ~B
C1 therefore A!!
Q.E.D. (have a nice day!)


You can't prove, nor disprove, God's existence. Even if every Theistic argument for God's existence fails, God may still exist.

The Fool: This is an appeal to ignorance if we don't have knowledge of his existence we have knowledge that it is Possible.
NO!.
You cant go from nothing to possibility. 0->(0<x<1) NO! fallacy. From nothing comes nothing.
Q.E.D.

Come again. Line them up. and I will knock them down.

KeytarHero wrote:: I didn't say "how is it not?" I just said that this was a lousy argument against God's existence.

The Fool: yes it was.

KeytarHero wrote:: You are free to challenge me to a debate, if you wish. I will accept.

You gave a proposition. "...any notion of God is unclamable as knowledge." So back it up. If you can't, then while it may be true (which is doubtful), you have no grounds for believing it.

The person making the claim has the burden of proof. The atheist slogan "you can't prove a universal negative" is simply incorrect. While you can never prove beyond the shadow of a doubt the existence OR non-existence of God, you CAN prove that the existence of God is more (or less) likely than His non-existence.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 1:18:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 4:23:09 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/16/2012 4:02:16 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:35:49 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 7/16/2012 1:43:42 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/16/2012 12:07:10 AM, ATHOS wrote:
God, he can do anything. Kind of like your imagination. Kind of sounds like they are connected doesn't it?

They are connected in that God created our imagination and our penchant for using it. This is clearly not a very good argument against God's existence (and to be fair, there really aren't any good arguments against God's existence).

Isn't it funny that both sides of the debate can say things like that with a straight face? What's the take-away, exactly? Everyone with the opposing view is either a fool, knowingly lying, or being manipulated? I wish I thought like that.

There are much better arguments for God's existence than against.

The Fool: good give one.

KeytarHero: What's your poison? Omnipotence paradox? Not taken seriously in academic circles.

The Fool: appeal to popularity. fallacy

KeytarHero: Problem of Evil? Essentially laid to rest by Plantinga's Free Will Defense.

The Fool: appeal to authority fallacy.

KeytarHero: And certainly saying "you can't see Him, so He doesn't exist" isn't a good argument.


KeytarHero : So I guess I could ask, what do you consider to be the best argument against God's existence?

The Fool: One is argument from inconcievablity. Got take a look, I have put many out there. That no body could answer.

I personally think you're way too big for your britches.

First, I wasn't making fallacies, I was simply speaking truth. The omnipotence paradox is not taken seriously in academic circles because it's just a bad argument. Only uneducated people make that argument. Can God create a stone so heavy even He can't lift it? No. Any stone God can create, He can lift. Can God create a married bachelor or a square triangle? No, because bachelors, by their nature, are unmarried and triangles, by their very nature, have three sides and three corners. God being omnipotent does not mean He can do absolutely anything, it means He can't do anything that goes against logic (such as creating a square triangle) and He can't do anything that goes against His nature (such as lying).

I'm not going to get in to the Problem of Evil/Free Will Defense because there are videos on YouTube that can explain it better than I, and I don't have the space for it.

Finally, I haven't seen you make (or I don't remember you making) an argument from inconceivability. You can feel free to challenge me to a debate on it, if you wish. But just because it's gone unanswered doesn't mean no one has an answer for it.

The difference between you and me is that I don't claim to have all the answers. I'll fully admit that the more I study philosophy, the less I realize I actually know. I could study it more than I am now, but I'm going into the field of pro-life apologetics so most of my time is spent in researching the abortion issue, as well as the science and philosophy relevant to that issue. So while I've read some Plato, some Kant, and some of a lot of other philosophers, to be effective in the abortion issue I just don't have the time to try and become an expert in these other fields. After all, a jack of all trades is a master of none. There are many much smarter people out there than I who can rebut and refute atheistic arguments.