Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

We All Are At A Draw!

cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You don't explicitly say it, but you insinuate that the belief in God and the disbelief in God are both equally unjustified. Since when do beliefs necessitate certainty? Why do you think we have that kind of luxury?
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:59:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.

all of history disproves creation theory, but not god. I am not saying god is real, but he could be.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 7:57:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

Pretty much.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:59:18 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.

all of history disproves creation theory, but not god. I am not saying god is real, but he could be.

If God is possible it follows he must exist, he's a necessary being so that he would have to be proved impossible. But since you think he's possible, then I'd like to welcome you as a fellow Theist. :-)
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:34:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 8:28:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:59:18 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.

all of history disproves creation theory, but not god. I am not saying god is real, but he could be.

If God is possible it follows he must exist, he's a necessary being so that he would have to be proved impossible. But since you think he's possible, then I'd like to welcome you as a fellow Theist. :-)

I am agnostic just to throw out
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:40:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 8:34:15 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 8:28:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:59:18 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.

all of history disproves creation theory, but not god. I am not saying god is real, but he could be.

If God is possible it follows he must exist, he's a necessary being so that he would have to be proved impossible. But since you think he's possible, then I'd like to welcome you as a fellow Theist. :-)

I am agnostic just to throw out

Cool.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:54:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 8:28:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:59:18 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.

all of history disproves creation theory, but not god. I am not saying god is real, but he could be.

If God is possible it follows he must exist, he's a necessary being so that he would have to be proved impossible. But since you think he's possible, then I'd like to welcome you as a fellow Theist. :-)

Is it impossible for an universe to exist where people can have ideas and conceptions about God being some necessary being, but there is no God?

If so, it would seem to imply atheism is logically impossible unless the atheist denies even the possibility of God existing.

I've never understand what's so convincing about being able to define god into existence by presupposing some unified object made constructed through largely arbitrary criteria as being inherently necessary. Even worse, those who are arguing God exists a priori talk about "discovering" what these criteria are by further presupposing a value systems that arbitrarily ranks sentience/complexity/some variable as an indicator of when something counts has a "discovered" great-making property.

Whenever I have asked a proponent about the value system they use to uncover great-making properties and why sentience/life gets so much importance, I'm rebuffed by pure astonishment that someone would question whether complexity/interestingness/sentience can be used to establish whether something is great-making.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:58:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 8:54:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/25/2013 8:28:55 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:59:18 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:57:53 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

As a concept, you're absolutely right; as an experiential reality, atheists have all of history against them.

all of history disproves creation theory, but not god. I am not saying god is real, but he could be.

If God is possible it follows he must exist, he's a necessary being so that he would have to be proved impossible. But since you think he's possible, then I'd like to welcome you as a fellow Theist. :-)

Is it impossible for an universe to exist where people can have ideas and conceptions about God being some necessary being, but there is no God?

If so, it would seem to imply atheism is logically impossible unless the atheist denies even the possibility of God existing.

I've never understand what's so convincing about being able to define god into existence by presupposing some unified object made constructed through largely arbitrary criteria as being inherently necessary. Even worse, those who are arguing God exists a priori talk about "discovering" what these criteria are by further presupposing a value systems that arbitrarily ranks sentience/complexity/some variable as an indicator of when something counts has a "discovered" great-making property.

Whenever I have asked a proponent about the value system they use to uncover great-making properties and why sentience/life gets so much importance, I'm rebuffed by pure astonishment that someone would question whether complexity/interestingness/sentience can be used to establish whether something is great-making.

Sounds confused.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 9:08:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 8:54:08 PM, Wnope wrote:



[Impossible for a universe to exist where people can have conceptions about God being some necessary being]

Want to clarify what you're saying here? It seems as if you want to say it's possible for a world to exist wherein folks never apprehend God.


If so, it would seem to imply atheism is logically impossible unless the atheist denies even the possibility of God existing.

I don't see how that would follow, God would be ontic, not based on epistemology. Hence the ontological argument. Think of a hard math problem, the answer you come up with could be true but if it is, then it's always and ever true. It can't not be true.


what's so convincing about being able to define god into existence by presupposing some unified object made constructed through largely arbitrary criteria as being inherently necessary. Even worse, those who are arguing God exists a priori talk about "discovering" what these criteria are by further presupposing a value systems that arbitrarily ranks sentience/complexity/some variable as an indicator of when something counts has a "discovered" great-making property.

Our gradual discovery of necessary great making properties (moral value for instance), needn't be certain and nor is our discovery of them relevant to the argument. The OA doesn't stand or fall with God's great making properties. Just that they're possible to have. Also, no one's defining anything into existence- necessary existence just IS a property, not contingent existence. Defining a red apple into existence would be fallacious. But the necessary relationship 2+2=4, say, isn't defined into existence once we affirm the Peano Axioms.


Whenever I have asked a proponent about the value system they use to uncover great-making properties and why sentience/life gets so much importance, I'm rebuffed by pure astonishment that someone would question whether complexity/interestingness/sentience can be used to establish whether something is great-making.

Whoever said God's complex? He might have complex ideas but an ultramundane mind is very simple in terms of no composite parts, etc. Don't confuse a minds ideas with the substance itself.

... What do YOU think are great making properties? Things which are good in all possible worlds?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 10:21:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do atheists need to prove there is no God? Personally, I don't think any person would feel they're in a stalemate in regards to the existence of something like the tooth fairy, even though no one can disprove it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 4:00:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 9:08:41 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/25/2013 8:54:08 PM, Wnope wrote:



[Impossible for a universe to exist where people can have conceptions about God being some necessary being]

Want to clarify what you're saying here? It seems as if you want to say it's possible for a world to exist wherein folks never apprehend God.


If so, it would seem to imply atheism is logically impossible unless the atheist denies even the possibility of God existing.

I don't see how that would follow, God would be ontic, not based on epistemology. Hence the ontological argument. Think of a hard math problem, the answer you come up with could be true but if it is, then it's always and ever true. It can't not be true.


what's so convincing about being able to define god into existence by presupposing some unified object made constructed through largely arbitrary criteria as being inherently necessary. Even worse, those who are arguing God exists a priori talk about "discovering" what these criteria are by further presupposing a value systems that arbitrarily ranks sentience/complexity/some variable as an indicator of when something counts has a "discovered" great-making property.

Our gradual discovery of necessary great making properties (moral value for instance), needn't be certain and nor is our discovery of them relevant to the argument. The OA doesn't stand or fall with God's great making properties. Just that they're possible to have. Also, no one's defining anything into existence- necessary existence just IS a property, not contingent existence. Defining a red apple into existence would be fallacious. But the necessary relationship 2+2=4, say, isn't defined into existence once we affirm the Peano Axioms.


Whenever I have asked a proponent about the value system they use to uncover great-making properties and why sentience/life gets so much importance, I'm rebuffed by pure astonishment that someone would question whether complexity/interestingness/sentience can be used to establish whether something is great-making.

Whoever said God's complex? He might have complex ideas but an ultramundane mind is very simple in terms of no composite parts, etc. Don't confuse a minds ideas with the substance itself.

... What do YOU think are great making properties? Things which are good in all possible worlds?

My entire problem is that I find the entire process leading to giving something the title of "maximal greatness" misleading.

There is this assumption that you can collect a set of properties related to sentience which can then be unified (i.e. omniscience, morally perfect) but occurs non-arbitrarily.

Why can't I posit a "universal apple" described not as an object but in terms of the property of "maximal greatness*" referring to unsurpassibility with respect to great*-making properties.

Unlike Platinga's collection of great-making properties, great*-making properties relate to unsurpassibility in redness and juicey-ness. Why is it incoherent to then speak of maximal exellence* with respect the greatness* of universal apple and all possible worlds?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By that logic, the argument over whether all atoms outside the observable universe are filled with millions of tiny green goblins provides equal relevance to both sides.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:46:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We can't prove invisible rapist unicorns don't exist either.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 8:58:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

Being agnostic is soooo much easier.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2013 11:07:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/26/2013 8:46:46 PM, tvellalott wrote:
We can't prove invisible rapist unicorns don't exist either.

Do you believe in a multiverse? If so, there is a high probability that invisible rapist unicorns exist lol
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 4:19:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is simple to decimate the trinitarian ideology by using the Father Xmas & Pure Orange Juice analogies!

The trinitarians and their associated trinitarian god(s) haven't a hope against them (as I successfully prove almost daily)

Your vindicated mentor, 50 nearly 51 year successful Cult busting personal successful literal Saviour, moi!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2013 2:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 6:41:05 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
Face it. theists, you can't prove that there is a god, but atheists, you can prove there isn't a god. no matter how much you whine about it you know its true. both of you are at a stalemate

BULLOCKS I say!!!

Boy, what's wrong with ya?? Are you trying to shut down the religion forum and ruin all our fun by scaring away all the atheists?? You can't declare a stalement until they catch up and actually show something. :)