Total Posts:392|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists Deny Logic; Theists are Right.

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Logic would deem that God exists. Atheists constantly demand "proof" yet nothing can be proven, only believed in beyond doubt. In the same, God is believed in beyond doubt.

Faith isn't blind faith in God, faith is the leap in reason to reach the conclusion of God. Atheists constantly demand for physical evidence but it cannot be provided because the concept of God is outside of something that can be physically proven. Rather, philosophical reasoning (which is just as sound as physical reasoning) is provided for the existence of God.

KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe has a cause.
C1.That cause is God.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.

Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created." Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.

The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
P2. Humans naturally desire God.
C1. Therefore God exists.

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

-

These are some of the many arguments that refute atheist logic. Atheists refuse to believe in what cannot be shown physical evidence, and therefore make themselves ignorant to the entire philosophical aspect of God. Their greatest argument is that the universe could come from nothing, which is a sham in of itself. They argue that negative energies and positive energies could cancel each other out, and when they did not cancel each other the universe came into existence, but where did these negative and positive energies come from? They still required a causation.

Discuss.
Nolite Timere
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:14:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism is delusion. An ideology based on hypocrisy, contradictions, and delusion. Such as religious scripture is not proof because, and the reason is just because it says it is true is not proof that it is true. Yet they turn right around and say an article in science was peer-reviewed, and there proof is.....because it says so. Hypocrisy at it's highest order.

Or when they say only what can be tested and observed is true, yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, they provide a link, which is only more words saying something is true because it says so.

The point is no atheist on this forum or on the planet can proof their beliefs without referring to someone else's testimony. They all have to rely on a source, or someone else's words. Therefore, their belief is faith-based. So if religion is false because it is faith-based, then so is the logic of atheism.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists.
Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false. There is no objective evidence for God, therefore, logic dictates disbelief; just as with fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids and gremlins.

Atheists constantly demand "proof" yet nothing can be proven, only believed in beyond doubt. In the same, God is believed in beyond doubt.
I never ask for "proof" of anything. I ask for objective evidence and the request for evidence is perfectly appropriate, and logical. Belief is not a measure of veracity. People have believed in hundreds of Gods - without doubt - which you believe never existed.

Faith isn't blind faith in God, faith is the leap in reason to reach the conclusion of God.
"Faith" and "blind faith" are exactly the same thing. The only difference is that one is used with a negative connotation, while the other is usually suggested to have a positive connotation. But the positive connotation is incorrect. Faith is NEVER a good thing. It's simply gullibility, lack of reason, avoidance of logic and foolishness.

Atheists constantly demand for physical evidence but it cannot be provided because the concept of God is outside of something that can be physically proven.
You simply couldn't be more wrong. In that theists insist that God interacts with the physical, there would be physical evidence of this interaction. You can't interact with the physical without leaving physical evidence. And yet, no matter how often theists are challenged to present physical evidence, statistical evidence, or any other form of objective evidence for God, they simply can't do it. And they can't do it because there isn't any. Things which don't exist don't provide objective evidence of their existence.

Rather, philosophical reasoning (which is just as sound as physical reasoning) is provided for the existence of God.
Actually,what you've presented is better desrcibed as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times).

KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
The universe did NOT "begin to exist".

P2. The universe has a cause.
According to your false and misplaced premise, the universe did not have a cause, because the universe did not "begin to exist". Big-bang is a transformation event, not a creation event.

C1.That cause is God.
Even if big-bang were a creation event, and even IF the universe began to exist, you're simply jumping to a conclusion, not supporting a rational line of logic. God is illogical in just about any way you choose to describe him. A "perfect" entity who creates imperfection, and is then disappointed in his creation, rather than his failure, is totally illogical.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.
Uncaused metafairies are uncaused by definition and by name. And I got them the same way theists got God... made 'em up!

Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works.
There are distinct differences between results manifesting from intelligent decision-making, and results derived from physical properties and random interactions. There is nothing in nature which is consistent with intelligent decision-making. It is all consistent with the mechanical precision of random interactions regulated by physical properties.

The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created."
Thermodynamics? Are you sure? The First Law of Thermodynamics is the "Law of Conservation of Energy". This is not a property of the universe, but a property of matter/energy itself. And the law states that matter/energy can be neither created, nor destroyed. Yet you primary need for a God is to create the universe which has always existed.

Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.
That's beyond a PRATT... it's just plain silly. Rationality is firstly, contrary to religious beliefs. Secondly, it is derived from observation of our environment. No matter what environment a being must interact within, if it is to survive, it must learn to interact within the rules of that environment. And as long as the physical has properties, an environment will always have "rules".

The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
Untrue. Have you never wanted for something... yet couldn't identify the object of that want?

P2. Humans naturally desire God.
Theists naturally desire God. Atheists tend to recognize that God (at least, the God of the Bible and Qur'an), makes Hitler look like a protective mother by comparison.

C1. Therefore God exists.
If you draw a conclusion on two false premises, the conclusion will more than likely be false as well. Your conclusion is totally false. Because people want something, it exists is irrational, emotionalistic rabbit droppings. Have some?

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.
I desire for my fiance to still be alive, therefore...

..oops. You lose, I lose, we both lose. The only difference is that I'm rational about reality while you insist that reality must conform to your rather childish wants. You want God to exist because he's a parent figure for adults.

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
God is not necessary. There is no objective evidence for God. If God were necessary, either the universe would not exist, or we would have evidence of where God is necessary in the universe.

P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
We can imagine a world where cats have wings, oxygen is pink, and horses speak English through anally expelled methane. (See, I just did.) But that doesn't mean such a world exists.

C1. God is necessary.
As there is no objective evidence of God, God is most certainly not necessary.

C2. Therefore God exists in this world.
Idiots are necessary for religion to persist. Religion exists. Therefore, idiots exist in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.
It's not an argument. It's a blind assertion resting upon invented premises which fail.

These are some of the many arguments that refute atheist logic. Atheists refuse to believe in what cannot be shown physical evidence, and therefore make themselves ignorant to the entire philosophical aspect of God. Their greatest argument is that the universe could come from nothing, which is a sham in of itself. They argue that negative energies and positive energies could cancel each other out, and when they did not cancel each other the universe came into existence, but where did these negative and positive energies come from? :They still required a causation.

They're just PRATTs. Atheists have refuted all of these arguments over, and over, and over. I've been refuting them for over 11-years and I've only been involved in such debates for 11-years.


Discuss.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:18:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists.
Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false...

That is not what Logic says you dope.

Where is the Objective evidence for Logic, Morals, Progress, Black Holes, Dark Energy.

Before there was objective evidence for orangutangs, Guess what Beastt? They existed. Before there was objective evidence for giant squids they still existed.

LOGIC Dictates that Objective evidence doesn't make something exist or not exist.

You constantly show you do not know what Logic is. "no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false" is a argument from ignorance. pure and simple.
heisnotrisen
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:32:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:14:45 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Atheism is delusion. An ideology based on hypocrisy, contradictions, and delusion. Such as religious scripture is not proof because, and the reason is just because it says it is true is not proof that it is true. Yet they turn right around and say an article in science was peer-reviewed, and there proof is.....because it says so. Hypocrisy at it's highest order.

Or when they say only what can be tested and observed is true, yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, they provide a link, which is only more words saying something is true because it says so.

The point is no atheist on this forum or on the planet can proof their beliefs without referring to someone else's testimony. They all have to rely on a source, or someone else's words. Therefore, their belief is faith-based. So if religion is false because it is faith-based, then so is the logic of atheism.

Prove it.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:41:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Beastt is always trying to tell people what logic is. He has no concept of logic as espoused by philosophers, thinkers, and such from the last 4000 years ago,

Science is good at one thing. Conducting experiments to discern patterns for prediction of repetitive events. And even that it gets wrong at times and is forced to change accordingly.

Things exist, when they exist. Orangutangs, Deep sea fish, living ceolocanths, frill sharks, gorillas, chimpanzees, okapi, dinosaurs, black holes, etc.. all existed before there was objective evidence and scientific study of them.

What Beastt wants is the questions and investigation to stop when there is no easily found evidence. What he calls "obvious". His thinking would be the end of progress. A mentality that would be the continued circular study of things already known.

A type of study that matches status quo and rarely advances knowledge.

You think there is any objective evidence for Dark Energy? None and yet people look for it. There is no more evidence for Dark Energy then there is for unicorns or leprechauns.

See Beastt doesn't care if science or people look for something with out evidence of it's existence. He only cares if the subject matter is God.

Sure he may object to someone searching for unicorns. All he really is a Atheist kool-aid drinking repository of already known and consensus accepted facts. And when it comes to speculation about quantum gravity, dark energy, etc.. he will accept those things whole heartily in an endeavor to say "God is not needed" Which Logic dictates things like this do not negate the need nor existence of God.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:43:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:18:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists.
Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false...

That is not what Logic says you dope.
Where is the Objective evidence for Logic, Morals, Progress, Black Holes, Dark Energy.
No matter where I post or what I post, you're always there right behind me. It's obviously not coincidence at this point. And I should thank you because your arguments are so illogical, disjointed and pathetic, that you actually make mine look better than they were to begin with.

Where is the objective evidence for logic? Does it work? Is it logical to remove the gas cap before you attempt to fuel your vehicle? And what would happen if you reversed the order? Duh!

Morals are simply an agreement among members of a society, to allow the society to exist. Without morals, societies would tear themselves apart, even as they tried to form. Do societies exist? Duh!

Progress is only determined by one's goal. One can make progress constructing a building, or tearing one down. It relies completely upon the chosen goal.

Black Holes? May I remind you that Einstein proposed black holes before they were confirmed to exist? Do you suppose he used Evidence for that? Or was he one of your silly religious "prophets"? Duh!

Dark Energy? The fact that gravity doesn't account for the speed at which stars travel at the outer regions of the arms of spiral galaxies means that another force is at work. The fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating also shows a force aside from - and contrary to - gravity, is at work. That's the objective evidence for Dark Energy! Duh!

Why don't you just go crawl in a hole somewhere. You refuse to learn. You refuse to admit it when you've been refuted and shown to be wrong consistently. You continue to present arguments which can only be described as pure stupidity. So seriously, what's in this for you?

Before there was objective evidence for orangutangs, Guess what Beastt? They existed.
The fact that they existed meant there was objective evidence for them. Duh! If you see an orangutan, and other people see an orangutan, and you find their spore, and droppings from their feeding... it's ALL objective evidence. And it exists when Orangutans exist. The physical does not exist - cannot exist - without physical evidence. And since there isn't any evidence of anything beyond the physical, you're without a rational argument for anything BUT the physical. And I highly suggest you start there, since you keep demonstrating that you can't even understand the physical.

Before there was objective evidence for giant squids they still existed.
We knew cephalopods existed. It was simply a matter of size variation. That's completely unlike suggesting that a disembodied intelligence could exist, when we have no evidence that intelligence can arise from other than a physical biological agent.

LOGIC Dictates that Objective evidence doesn't make something exist or not exist.
LOGIC dictates that, that which exists, leaves objective evidence. And that which has never existed, leaves no evidence of anything.

You constantly show you do not know what Logic is. "no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false" is a argument from ignorance. pure and simple.
Look, I've had multiple discussions from other atheists on the board and they've all agreed that you haven't the slightest hint what logic means, how it works, or where it is applicable. So please, don't transfer your idiocy onto me, simply because you can't get past your childhood beliefs in boogie men and sky fairies.

I'm really quite done with your incredible stupidity.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
heisnotrisen
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:44:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:41:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Beastt is always trying to tell people what logic is. He has no concept of logic as espoused by philosophers, thinkers, and such from the last 4000 years ago,

Science is good at one thing. Conducting experiments to discern patterns for prediction of repetitive events. And even that it gets wrong at times and is forced to change accordingly.

Things exist, when they exist. Orangutangs, Deep sea fish, living ceolocanths, frill sharks, gorillas, chimpanzees, okapi, dinosaurs, black holes, etc.. all existed before there was objective evidence and scientific study of them.

What Beastt wants is the questions and investigation to stop when there is no easily found evidence. What he calls "obvious". His thinking would be the end of progress. A mentality that would be the continued circular study of things already known.

A type of study that matches status quo and rarely advances knowledge.

You think there is any objective evidence for Dark Energy? None and yet people look for it. There is no more evidence for Dark Energy then there is for unicorns or leprechauns.

See Beastt doesn't care if science or people look for something with out evidence of it's existence. He only cares if the subject matter is God.

Sure he may object to someone searching for unicorns. All he really is a Atheist kool-aid drinking repository of already known and consensus accepted facts. And when it comes to speculation about quantum gravity, dark energy, etc.. he will accept those things whole heartily in an endeavor to say "God is not needed" Which Logic dictates things like this do not negate the need nor existence of God.

Great. Anything else you would like to add? Unless you can offer evidence to substantiate god, than your fairytale remains.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:17:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:43:22 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 2:18:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists.
Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false...

That is not what Logic says you dope.
Where is the Objective evidence for Logic, Morals, Progress, Black Holes, Dark Energy.
No matter where I post or what I post, you're always there right behind me. It's obviously not coincidence at this point. And I should thank you because your arguments are so illogical, disjointed and pathetic, that you actually make mine look better than they were to begin with.

Where is the objective evidence for logic? Does it work? Is it logical to remove the gas cap before you attempt to fuel your vehicle? And what would happen if you reversed the order? Duh!

That would be objective evidence for putting fuel in a car. Answer the question directly. Objective Evidence for Logic.


Morals are simply an agreement among members of a society, to allow the society to exist. Without morals, societies would tear themselves apart, even as they tried to form. Do societies exist? Duh!

Societies exist and have subjective morals according to you. but if we follow with the definition of Objective Evidence... wait maybe I should just hear out what your twisted self delusional definition is of objective evidence before I argue about what is or isn't evidence.


Progress is only determined by one's goal. One can make progress constructing a building, or tearing one down. It relies completely upon the chosen goal.

So no objective evidence for social progress? Or just objective evidence for progress towards a subjective goal.


Black Holes? May I remind you that Einstein proposed black holes before they were confirmed to exist? Do you suppose he used Evidence for that? Or was he one of your silly religious "prophets"? Duh!

No I supposed he was a theoretical physicist. He made a formula for special relativity that allowed for something like a black hole to be made. The only evidence for black holes was a math formula Einstein created. You would denounce such a thing as evidence.

I know you would because http://www.decodedscience.com...


Dark Energy? The fact that gravity doesn't account for the speed at which stars travel at the outer regions of the arms of spiral galaxies means that another force is at work. The fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating also shows a force aside from - and contrary to - gravity, is at work. That's the objective evidence for Dark Energy! Duh!


No. Those are facts and Dark Energy is an attempt to describe those facts. With I might add a completely strange type of energy.

http://galileospendulum.org...

Why don't you just go crawl in a hole somewhere. You refuse to learn. You refuse to admit it when you've been refuted and shown to be wrong consistently. You continue to present arguments which can only be described as pure stupidity. So seriously, what's in this for you?

You refuse to admit that your pontifications are of the fallacious nature. That do not espouse a standard of logic.


Before there was objective evidence for orangutangs, Guess what Beastt? They existed.
The fact that they existed meant there was objective evidence for them. Duh! If you see an orangutan, and other people see an orangutan, and you find their spore, and droppings from their feeding... it's ALL objective evidence. And it exists when Orangutans exist. The physical does not exist - cannot exist - without physical evidence. And since there isn't any evidence of anything beyond the physical, you're without a rational argument for anything BUT the physical. And I highly suggest you start there, since you keep demonstrating that you can't even understand the physical.

I understand better than you do. As for the orangutangs. They existed in 1200's. They existed for a very long time. They were considered MYTH until Science discovered their "objective evidence". So what you fail to understand and that things exist not because there is objective evidence for it. Things exist because they either do or don't.

And if a Logical argument is left unanswered, it does not mean it is false. It means it is unanswered. Lack of evidence is just that. a lack of affirming evidence. It is not evidence to the negation.


Before there was objective evidence for giant squids they still existed.
We knew cephalopods existed. It was simply a matter of size variation. That's completely unlike suggesting that a disembodied intelligence could exist, when we have no evidence that intelligence can arise from other than a physical biological agent.

If there was only one Giant Squid and it only occasional sank boats, and ate whales int he deep ocean, and rarely was seen by people. Do you think Science would be saying it existed? No it would be saying it doesn't exist. So it is not the size variation that made it unappealing to be accepted by Science it was the rarity of it. Because "obvious" is sh!t worth evidence for such things. "Obvious" is hindsight (historical revision) and consensus (argumentum ad populum).


LOGIC Dictates that Objective evidence doesn't make something exist or not exist.
LOGIC dictates that, that which exists, leaves objective evidence. And that which has never existed, leaves no evidence of anything.

Read up http://www.strevens.org...


You constantly show you do not know what Logic is. "no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false" is a argument from ignorance. pure and simple.
Look, I've had multiple discussions from other atheists on the board and they've all agreed that you haven't the slightest hint what logic means, how it works, or where it is applicable. So please, don't transfer your idiocy onto me, simply because you can't get past your childhood beliefs in boogie men and sky fairies.

I'm really quite done with your incredible stupidity.

Oh I know how it works. I know you are so blinded by hate for a what you think should be an all-good doing God that saves mankind from every problem and heart ache, that you twist words and redefine arguments to make them air tight, adding in a good dose of your own "Scientifically" accepted speculations and half formulated ideas of Quantum Gravity, in essence building and maintaining a system that you call "Logic". But it is not the ontological, philosophical, legal, mathematical, quantum mechanical system of logic. Worst yet it is not even internally coherent.

It is your own God does not exists presupposition mix and match of other logical systems. And it is not reality. It may work day to day but it is not the truth that establishes the heavens and the earth.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:26:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:44:57 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 6/30/2014 2:41:45 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Beastt is always trying to tell people what logic is. He has no concept of logic as espoused by philosophers, thinkers, and such from the last 4000 years ago,

Science is good at one thing. Conducting experiments to discern patterns for prediction of repetitive events. And even that it gets wrong at times and is forced to change accordingly.

Things exist, when they exist. Orangutangs, Deep sea fish, living ceolocanths, frill sharks, gorillas, chimpanzees, okapi, dinosaurs, black holes, etc.. all existed before there was objective evidence and scientific study of them.

What Beastt wants is the questions and investigation to stop when there is no easily found evidence. What he calls "obvious". His thinking would be the end of progress. A mentality that would be the continued circular study of things already known.

A type of study that matches status quo and rarely advances knowledge.

You think there is any objective evidence for Dark Energy? None and yet people look for it. There is no more evidence for Dark Energy then there is for unicorns or leprechauns.

See Beastt doesn't care if science or people look for something with out evidence of it's existence. He only cares if the subject matter is God.

Sure he may object to someone searching for unicorns. All he really is a Atheist kool-aid drinking repository of already known and consensus accepted facts. And when it comes to speculation about quantum gravity, dark energy, etc.. he will accept those things whole heartily in an endeavor to say "God is not needed" Which Logic dictates things like this do not negate the need nor existence of God.

Great. Anything else you would like to add? Unless you can offer evidence to substantiate god, than your fairytale remains.

Oh. I was rejecting the claims of Beastt by pointing out situations and scenarios that "obviously" show that things exist even when we know nothing about any objective evidence.

Would you like to add something to that. Say admit that I am right?

Or no you would rather act like a childish Athiest and demand I present a completely different case and argument for the side opposing you.

Which if you knew anything about "Logic" as all Atheist claim they do, THAT would be shifting the burden. Beastt said "Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false"

So before found objective evidence for orangutangs, their existence was "False"

So before we found objective evidence for Giant Squid, their existence was false.

So before we found objective evidence for alpha particles, radiation sickness was false.

I was expressing my contention with this premise and wholly object to it being called logical. Now do you have something to add to that.

No like a typical Atheist your first move is to "Shift the Burden of Proof". You insinuate that to continue I have to present an argument and case for God to defeat what Beastt is calling Logical?

NO. I don't. If Beastt or you want to say something about what is logical then you are making a claim and I can attack that claim all I want. I do not have to present a counter claim. JUST evidence to the contrary of the premises not the whole argument.

So no be a deceitful Atheist if you want. I do not have to argue for God, to outline the clear fallacy and irrational substance of Beastt's statement.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:37:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists. Atheists constantly demand "proof" yet nothing can be proven, only believed in beyond doubt. In the same, God is believed in beyond doubt.

Faith isn't blind faith in God, faith is the leap in reason to reach the conclusion of God. Atheists constantly demand for physical evidence but it cannot be provided because the concept of God is outside of something that can be physically proven. Rather, philosophical reasoning (which is just as sound as physical reasoning) is provided for the existence of God.

KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe has a cause.
C1.That cause is God.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.

Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created." Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.


The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
P2. Humans naturally desire God.
C1. Therefore God exists.

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

-

These are some of the many arguments that refute atheist logic. Atheists refuse to believe in what cannot be shown physical evidence, and therefore make themselves ignorant to the entire philosophical aspect of God. Their greatest argument is that the universe could come from nothing, which is a sham in of itself. They argue that negative energies and positive energies could cancel each other out, and when they did not cancel each other the universe came into existence, but where did these negative and positive energies come from? They still required a causation.

Discuss.

The problem I see with the KCA Is the conclusion doesn't seem to necessarily follow from the premises. How do you make the leap from --everything that began to exist has a cause-- to that cause being god.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:46:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Okay, here goes...
KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe has a cause.
C1.That cause is God.

This is logically invalid.

To make it valid you need something like:
P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist
C1. The universe has a cause.
P3. If the universe has a cause, that cause is God
C2. That cause is God.

In which case I challenge P3, which is the jump from first causation to God.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.

If logical that anything is the first mover, because God is not the only possible uncaused thing. Since when is a conscious being a prerequisite for being uncaused?

Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created." Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.

Complexity implies lack of understanding as zarroette says. Building a TV overly complex is just a waste, simplicity is the order of an intelligent designer. Also complexity is naturally emerge from simpler beginnings (inflation + gravity = galaxies, stars and black holes).


The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
P2. Humans naturally desire God.
C1. Therefore God exists.

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.

I also desire a visit from Santa Claus, or a visit to a nearby alien civilisation. Does that mean they both exist? P1 is flimsy

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

Run the reverse argument. Swap P2 for

"P2*. We can imagine a world where God does not exist.

And the conclusion is god does not exist. The sad thing is such a world is very conceivable, I only have to imagine a world with just 1 particle in it and I already have satisfied this premise. There are entry of other places this breaks down, it's just a bad argument.


Discuss.

I would rather discuss this in a debate. Send me a challenge and I will deal with them.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 4:11:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to debate every theist on this forum in the existence of god.

Yet so few are willing to step up to the plate. How boring.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:17:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:32:25 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:14:45 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Atheism is delusion. An ideology based on hypocrisy, contradictions, and delusion. Such as religious scripture is not proof because, and the reason is just because it says it is true is not proof that it is true. Yet they turn right around and say an article in science was peer-reviewed, and there proof is.....because it says so. Hypocrisy at it's highest order.

Or when they say only what can be tested and observed is true, yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, they provide a link, which is only more words saying something is true because it says so.

The point is no atheist on this forum or on the planet can proof their beliefs without referring to someone else's testimony. They all have to rely on a source, or someone else's words. Therefore, their belief is faith-based. So if religion is false because it is faith-based, then so is the logic of atheism.

Prove it.

Response: Prove evolution without referring to what someone says. The fact that you cannot is the proof.
Mineva
Posts: 336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:26:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Always takes my attention that how atheist friends make excuses in the absence of God. Proves at each times that dream world is unstoppable. I love the parf the big bang was not a to come from nothing but a "transformation" : )
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:57:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists.
Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false. There is no objective evidence for God, therefore, logic dictates disbelief; just as with fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids and gremlins.

It's amazing how you can get everything this wrong this quicly.

Sorry your mummy made you go to Church on Sundays Beastt.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:31:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists. Atheists constantly demand "proof" yet nothing can be proven, only believed in beyond doubt. In the same, God is believed in beyond doubt.

Faith isn't blind faith in God, faith is the leap in reason to reach the conclusion of God. Atheists constantly demand for physical evidence but it cannot be provided because the concept of God is outside of something that can be physically proven. Rather, philosophical reasoning (which is just as sound as physical reasoning) is provided for the existence of God.

KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe has a cause.
C1.That cause is God.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.

If you can use P1, then what about P3: Everything has a cause. This means that the conclusion is contradictory.


Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created." Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.

Speculation.



The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
P2. Humans naturally desire God.
C1. Therefore God exists.

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.

P2: They naturally desire spiritual transcention, to have a cause greater than they are. A side effect of this may be religion, but that doesn't prove religion to be true.


Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

I can imagine a world where "God" doesn't exist, this one. God isn't necessary.


-

These are some of the many arguments that refute atheist logic. Atheists refuse to believe in what cannot be shown physical evidence, and therefore make themselves ignorant to the entire philosophical aspect of God. Their greatest argument is that the universe could come from nothing, which is a sham in of itself. They argue that negative energies and positive energies could cancel each other out, and when they did not cancel each other the universe came into existence, but where did these negative and positive energies come from? They still required a causation.

Discuss.

What is "God"? Your arguments may or may not suggest some greater force/being. It all depends how you define "God". If it's the Christian "God" then your arguments fall far short of a proof. They tell us nothing about the will of this supposed being. This in turn gives us no guidance on how to live our lives.

It's important to remember that arguing for deities is one thing, but arguing for a particular religion is a whole other kettle of fish.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:37:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:14:45 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Atheism is delusion. An ideology based on hypocrisy, contradictions, and delusion. Such as religious scripture is not proof because, and the reason is just because it says it is true is not proof that it is true. Yet they turn right around and say an article in science was peer-reviewed, and there proof is.....because it says so. Hypocrisy at it's highest order.

You can find our if it's peer-reviewed or not. If it isn't then the chances are someone will find out and there will be consequences. Lying about something being peer-reviewed is very risky and can be very damaging for careers. Not quite hypocrisy.


Or when they say only what can be tested and observed is true, yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, they provide a link, which is only more words saying something is true because it says so.

Lol.


The point is no atheist on this forum or on the planet can proof their beliefs without referring to someone else's testimony. They all have to rely on a source, or someone else's words. Therefore, their belief is faith-based. So if religion is false because it is faith-based, then so is the logic of atheism.

If you want first-hand experience of the evidence then you'll probably have to do the experiments yourself. Otherwise you'll have to place your trust in scientists. It's not in their interests to just lie about science though, it's in their interests to be skeptical, which is why a lot of people trust them and why I trust them. Not 100% trust, but enough.

Religion isn't comparable.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Geogeer
Posts: 4,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 10:59:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:46:31 AM, Envisage wrote:

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

Run the reverse argument. Swap P2 for

"P2*. We can imagine a world where God does not exist.

And the conclusion is god does not exist. The sad thing is such a world is very conceivable, I only have to imagine a world with just 1 particle in it and I already have satisfied this premise. There are entry of other places this breaks down, it's just a bad argument.

This is why I find that modal logic is poor for this argument. This is because we do not "know" what is necessary for the world to exist in the context of the argument. i.e. is the whole of creation held in existence solely by the will of God, or not. As such, we cannot have a logical basis for P2 either way. Without a logical basis, both are based on assumed facts - neither of which can be proven.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 12:45:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:32:25 AM, heisnotrisen wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:14:45 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Atheism is delusion. An ideology based on hypocrisy, contradictions, and delusion. Such as religious scripture is not proof because, and the reason is just because it says it is true is not proof that it is true. Yet they turn right around and say an article in science was peer-reviewed, and there proof is.....because it says so. Hypocrisy at it's highest order.

Or when they say only what can be tested and observed is true, yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, they provide a link, which is only more words saying something is true because it says so.

The point is no atheist on this forum or on the planet can proof their beliefs without referring to someone else's testimony. They all have to rely on a source, or someone else's words. Therefore, their belief is faith-based. So if religion is false because it is faith-based, then so is the logic of atheism.

Prove it.

Proof doesn't exist, and this statement just goes to show that you have no idea how to argue or what to argue. You offer nothing substantial accept trying to shove a burden of 'proof" onto someone.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 12:58:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:04:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists.
Logic dictates that if you have no objective evidence for a suggested concept, the concept is false.

No it doesn't.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:04:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would only say that these arguments only support a very abstract concept of god as a fundamental principle of reality. They do not come close to establishing the type of God that exists in most Western religion.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:06:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:04:52 PM, Raisor wrote:
I would only say that these arguments only support a very abstract concept of god as a fundamental principle of reality. They do not come close to establishing the type of God that exists in most Western religion.

Also that of the arguments you have cited, I only think the kca and modal ontological argument are tenable.
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:08:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:37:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists. Atheists constantly demand "proof" yet nothing can be proven, only believed in beyond doubt. In the same, God is believed in beyond doubt.

Faith isn't blind faith in God, faith is the leap in reason to reach the conclusion of God. Atheists constantly demand for physical evidence but it cannot be provided because the concept of God is outside of something that can be physically proven. Rather, philosophical reasoning (which is just as sound as physical reasoning) is provided for the existence of God.

KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe has a cause.
C1.That cause is God.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.

Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created." Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.


The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
P2. Humans naturally desire God.
C1. Therefore God exists.

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

-

These are some of the many arguments that refute atheist logic. Atheists refuse to believe in what cannot be shown physical evidence, and therefore make themselves ignorant to the entire philosophical aspect of God. Their greatest argument is that the universe could come from nothing, which is a sham in of itself. They argue that negative energies and positive energies could cancel each other out, and when they did not cancel each other the universe came into existence, but where did these negative and positive energies come from? They still required a causation.

Discuss.

The problem I see with the KCA Is the conclusion doesn't seem to necessarily follow from the premises. How do you make the leap from --everything that began to exist has a cause-- to that cause being god.

I second this position.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:17:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:08:25 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:37:26 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:42:26 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Logic would deem that God exists. Atheists constantly demand "proof" yet nothing can be proven, only believed in beyond doubt. In the same, God is believed in beyond doubt.

Faith isn't blind faith in God, faith is the leap in reason to reach the conclusion of God. Atheists constantly demand for physical evidence but it cannot be provided because the concept of God is outside of something that can be physically proven. Rather, philosophical reasoning (which is just as sound as physical reasoning) is provided for the existence of God.

KCA

P1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe has a cause.
C1.That cause is God.

It is logical that God is the "first mover" because only God can be uncaused by definition.

Teleological Argument

The universe has a designer. There is no other way nature works as it works. The laws of nature, gravity, thermodynamics, everything is far too complex for something supposedly "unintelligent" to have "created." Also, the fact that rational and intelligence exist among human beings is proof that intelligence exists, perhaps supernaturally.


The Argument from Desire

P1. For every desire something exists to appease that desire.
P2. Humans naturally desire God.
C1. Therefore God exists.

We desire to drink, water exists, we desire to eat, food exists. We desire God, God exist. The some does not exist for things such as a fluffy pink unicorn, because there are core traits to that unicorn that one would desire, not that unicorn in of itself. God is defined by his traits (all loving, a protector, an intelligent being) and encompasses all the good things humans desire.

Modal Ontological Argument

P1. If God is necessary God exists in every possible world.
P2. We can imagine a world where God exists.
C1. God is necessary.
C2. Therefore God exists in this world.

This argument is self-explanatory.

-

These are some of the many arguments that refute atheist logic. Atheists refuse to believe in what cannot be shown physical evidence, and therefore make themselves ignorant to the entire philosophical aspect of God. Their greatest argument is that the universe could come from nothing, which is a sham in of itself. They argue that negative energies and positive energies could cancel each other out, and when they did not cancel each other the universe came into existence, but where did these negative and positive energies come from? They still required a causation.

Discuss.

The problem I see with the KCA Is the conclusion doesn't seem to necessarily follow from the premises. How do you make the leap from --everything that began to exist has a cause-- to that cause being god.


Because it establishes God as an entirely self-determinative entity, and therefore as a self-contained, self-processing and self-justifying entity. These respectively correspond to omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:18:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:06:37 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:04:52 PM, Raisor wrote:
I would only say that these arguments only support a very abstract concept of god as a fundamental principle of reality. They do not come close to establishing the type of God that exists in most Western religion.

Also that of the arguments you have cited, I only think the kca and modal ontological argument are tenable.

I'm surprised to see you in the religion forum.

I think the Teological Argument is weak by itself, the modal ontological is good, the argument from desire is iffy, and the KCA doesn't logically follow. If I were to ever present arguments for God it would be based of Thomist philosophy, something that Zmike likes to use if you read his debate on God's existence against Ssswdm.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:45:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The atheist maintains that the universe (or equivalently, reality) "just exists". But this position is absurd. Explanation is identification of structure, and structure is identical to definition. If reality has no explanation for its existence, then we are left with two options: either reality is not real, or its structure is absolutely incomplete (that is, we must rely on an unreal basis of existence in which its structure can be distinguished as real). But if reality is not ultimately closed, then entities outside reality can be incorporated in real structures and processes; but in that case they are real, and thus inside reality. This contradiction implies that reality is ultimately closed with respect to all real relations and operations, including the definition operation as applied to reality itself. (Q.E.D.)
Fatihah
Posts: 7,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:03:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 10:37:35 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:14:45 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Atheism is delusion. An ideology based on hypocrisy, contradictions, and delusion. Such as religious scripture is not proof because, and the reason is just because it says it is true is not proof that it is true. Yet they turn right around and say an article in science was peer-reviewed, and there proof is.....because it says so. Hypocrisy at it's highest order.

You can find our if it's peer-reviewed or not. If it isn't then the chances are someone will find out and there will be consequences. Lying about something being peer-reviewed is very risky and can be very damaging for careers. Not quite hypocrisy.


Response: Saying "you can find out" is not evidence something is peer-reviewed is true. If that's the case, then according to your logic, the Qur'an is true and the proof is "you can find out".

Or when they say only what can be tested and observed is true, yet when asked to provide observable evidence of a species evolving into another, they provide a link, which is only more words saying something is true because it says so.

Lol.


The point is no atheist on this forum or on the planet can proof their beliefs without referring to someone else's testimony. They all have to rely on a source, or someone else's words. Therefore, their belief is faith-based. So if religion is false because it is faith-based, then so is the logic of atheism.

If you want first-hand experience of the evidence then you'll probably have to do the experiments yourself. Otherwise you'll have to place your trust in scientists. It's not in their interests to just lie about science though, it's in their interests to be skeptical, which is why a lot of people trust them and why I trust them. Not 100% trust, but enough.

Religion isn't comparable.

Response: When a person believes in something false, then it is in their interest to lie. So saying something is true because a scientist says so is blind faith, for the scientist could be lying to support their belief.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:11:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:45:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The atheist maintains that the universe (or equivalently, reality) "just exists". But this position is absurd. Explanation is identification of structure, and structure is identical to definition. If reality has no explanation for its existence, then we are left with two options: either reality is not real, or its structure is absolutely incomplete (that is, we must rely on an unreal basis of existence in which its structure can be distinguished as real). But if reality is not ultimately closed, then entities outside reality can be incorporated in real structures and processes; but in that case they are real, and thus inside reality. This contradiction implies that reality is ultimately closed with respect to all real relations and operations, including the definition operation as applied to reality itself. (Q.E.D.)

I take it you're a theist? And if so, do you identify yourself as something particularly i.e Deist, Christian, ect. ?
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:16:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:11:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:45:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The atheist maintains that the universe (or equivalently, reality) "just exists". But this position is absurd. Explanation is identification of structure, and structure is identical to definition. If reality has no explanation for its existence, then we are left with two options: either reality is not real, or its structure is absolutely incomplete (that is, we must rely on an unreal basis of existence in which its structure can be distinguished as real). But if reality is not ultimately closed, then entities outside reality can be incorporated in real structures and processes; but in that case they are real, and thus inside reality. This contradiction implies that reality is ultimately closed with respect to all real relations and operations, including the definition operation as applied to reality itself. (Q.E.D.)

I take it you're a theist? And if so, do you identify yourself as something particularly i.e Deist, Christian, ect. ?

There is no name for what I am, but Panentheism would probably come closest.