Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Deities are not like the tooth fairy

jh1234lnew
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:57:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

You really should try to be honest about your deity claims, there is no logic or scientific evidence to back them up.

Deities are compared to the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus because they all posses exactly the same properties and characteristics; undetectable.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:12:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.

Arguments are just words? All good arguments are based on logical soundness. Take apart any of them.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:13:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:12:15 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.

Arguments are just words? All good arguments are based on logical soundness. Take apart any of them.

Logical soundness is not evidence for the existence of gods. Try again.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:16:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:13:59 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:12:15 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.

Arguments are just words? All good arguments are based on logical soundness. Take apart any of them.

Logical soundness is not evidence for the existence of gods. Try again.

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:22:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:16:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:13:59 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:12:15 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.

Arguments are just words? All good arguments are based on logical soundness. Take apart any of them.

Logical soundness is not evidence for the existence of gods. Try again.

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

So God invented math? Is math math because God created it that way? So in another universe God could create math the resulted in 2 + 2 = 5?

The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too. The OP said there was evidence, and he has yet to present it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:32:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:22:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:16:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:13:59 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:12:15 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.

Arguments are just words? All good arguments are based on logical soundness. Take apart any of them.

Logical soundness is not evidence for the existence of gods. Try again.

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

So God invented math? Is math math because God created it that way? So in another universe God could create math the resulted in 2 + 2 = 5?

Logic is grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth must exist in a way that can never be untrue. God is the absolute truth grounding all logic and rationality. So no, since God is a being of absolute truth, logic and rationality can never be untrue. So 2 + 2 wouldnt = 5.

The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too. The OP said there was evidence, and he has yet to present it.

That's like saying since there's a theory that the world is flat instead of spherical, we don't have valid evidence of the world being spherical. Logical arguments are evidence because they have predictive and explanatory power just as Einsteins theory of relativity did.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 10:54:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:32:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:22:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

So God invented math? Is math math because God created it that way? So in another universe God could create math the resulted in 2 + 2 = 5?

Logic is grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth must exist in a way that can never be untrue. God is the absolute truth grounding all logic and rationality. So no, since God is a being of absolute truth, logic and rationality can never be untrue. So 2 + 2 wouldnt = 5.

Conjecture. Conjecture for days.

The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too. The OP said there was evidence, and he has yet to present it.

That's like saying since there's a theory that the world is flat instead of spherical, we don't have valid evidence of the world being spherical. Logical arguments are evidence because they have predictive and explanatory power just as Einsteins theory of relativity did.

I'll never get how theists don't understand how evidence works. THERE ARE HEAPS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVE THE EARTH IS ROUND. There is no room for debate, there is actual evidence humans can point to and say "Look, it's right there, proof of my assertion."

Theists on the other hand can't do this w/o first saying "Look at the evidence! God did it. How do I know? Because the Bible told me! And because God wrote the Bible the Bible can't be wrong! therefore God exists."
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 11:08:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:54:49 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:32:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:22:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

So God invented math? Is math math because God created it that way? So in another universe God could create math the resulted in 2 + 2 = 5?

Logic is grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth must exist in a way that can never be untrue. God is the absolute truth grounding all logic and rationality. So no, since God is a being of absolute truth, logic and rationality can never be untrue. So 2 + 2 wouldnt = 5.

Conjecture. Conjecture for days.

What is wrong with the argument logically?

The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too. The OP said there was evidence, and he has yet to present it.

That's like saying since there's a theory that the world is flat instead of spherical, we don't have valid evidence of the world being spherical. Logical arguments are evidence because they have predictive and explanatory power just as Einsteins theory of relativity did.

I'll never get how theists don't understand how evidence works. THERE ARE HEAPS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVE THE EARTH IS ROUND. There is no room for debate, there is actual evidence humans can point to and say "Look, it's right there, proof of my assertion."

I was merely responding to your claim when you said "The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too". I explained that there are arguments going against what is actually true but that doesn't make the truth any less true. Now, onto a different contention...

Is objective, physical evidence the only way to determine the existence of something?


Theists on the other hand can't do this w/o first saying "Look at the evidence! God did it. How do I know? Because the Bible told me! And because God wrote the Bible the Bible can't be wrong! therefore God exists."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 11:22:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:16:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:13:59 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:12:15 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:07:23 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

Argument from objective morality

Transcendental argument

Argument from degrees of perfection

Argument from the origin of information

Teleological argument

Kalam Cosmological argument

Argument from contingency

Etc.

So what? Arguments are not evidence for anything, they are just words.

Try again.

Arguments are just words? All good arguments are based on logical soundness. Take apart any of them.

Logical soundness is not evidence for the existence of gods. Try again.

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

Einstein used hard evidence. Truths about the universe are based on hard evidence.

Keep trying.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 11:24:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Logic is grounded in absolute truth.

W/o using the concept of God; tell me what absolute truth is. Tell me what "the truth" is.

Absolute truth must exist in a way that can never be untrue. God is the absolute truth grounding all logic and rationality. So no, since God is a being of absolute truth, logic and rationality can never be untrue. So 2 + 2 wouldnt = 5.

Which God is ground in truth? What is truth? Your logic is circular and it depends on the existence of god, then it depends on God being absolute truth, which then w/o really defining what truth is (w/o restating truth/God) we are left with no answer as to what God is.

I'll never get how theists don't understand how evidence works. THERE ARE HEAPS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVE THE EARTH IS ROUND. There is no room for debate, there is actual evidence humans can point to and say "Look, it's right there, proof of my assertion."

I was merely responding to your claim when you said "The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too". I explained that there are arguments going against what is actually true but that doesn't make the truth any less true. Now, onto a different contention...

AGAIN! You matter of factually just state that Gods existence is a fact, but you have yet to show any evidence! All of those "logical" arguments you listed above can be refuted and probably have. Especially the Kalam cosmo argument. As long as the debate is solely based on words it is all speculation. Seeing how there is no way to mathematically or physically prove God exists all you have is a presupposition that God existence. Which then of course by our preconceived notion of what God is you superimpose that idea on everything else. It's not evidence just because you believe it.

Is objective, physical evidence the only way to determine the existence of something?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 11:38:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

What people state about the existence of deities or characters like Santa has no bearing on whether these beings exist. I can state that you don't exist, that has no affect on reality.

You have logic and you have evidence. Logic is not evidence. Logic is what connects the evidence to the conclusion. That's why these arguments get dismissed, anyone making them fails at a very basic level to understand what is required for their conclusions to be rationally accepted.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 11:49:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:16:10 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:13:59 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
Logical soundness is not evidence for the existence of gods. Try again.

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

Logical soundness as you seem to be using it, says nothing more about an argument other than the fact that it is valid. Validity does not necessarily result in truth.

Every single argument begins with an "if" statement. If X, then Y. So in order for the argument to work, X must be true. There are two ways for X to be true, it can be consistent with reality or it can be consistent with logic. A logical argument for God is by definition an argument in which X is true because it is consistent with logic, which literally means that the argument has no tie to reality. An argument that has no tie to reality cannot qualify as evidence for the truth about reality.

Einstein's theories began with reality, and the only reason we were able to determine that they were consistent with reality is by testing them... in reality.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 12:36:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

Seriously? This topic again.

Fictitious characters, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc., are childhood beliefs. Religious deities are beliefs that are still encouraged into maturity. This is why:

With silly childhood beliefs we eventually learn that its all fictitious and our peers will tease us for continuing to believe. We feel silly for believing.

With deities the belief continues into adulthood because our peers encourage the belief. If you don't believe in God then you are labeled a social pariah who can do only evil because you have no attachment to a fatherly God to keep you on the straight and narrow. We feel silly if we don't believe.

It's all in the psychology of peer pressure.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 12:39:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The title sums it up perfectly.
The tooth fairy actually gives you something.
Nothing like a deity.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 5:52:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 12:36:23 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

Seriously? This topic again.

Fictitious characters, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc., are childhood beliefs. Religious deities are beliefs that are still encouraged into maturity. This is why:

With silly childhood beliefs we eventually learn that its all fictitious and our peers will tease us for continuing to believe. We feel silly for believing.

With deities the belief continues into adulthood because our peers encourage the belief. If you don't believe in God then you are labeled a social pariah who can do only evil because you have no attachment to a fatherly God to keep you on the straight and narrow. We feel silly if we don't believe.

It's all in the psychology of peer pressure.

The science of pure speculation.

Atheism of course, is free from anything like peer pressure, especially as the gist of the arguments is that, unless you think as they do, you are a stupid, drooling, moron, whose deserves to be mocked and derided.

I do love it when atheists come up standards to judge others that they never apply to their own position.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:15:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 5:52:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 11/16/2014 12:36:23 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

Seriously? This topic again.

Fictitious characters, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc., are childhood beliefs. Religious deities are beliefs that are still encouraged into maturity. This is why:

With silly childhood beliefs we eventually learn that its all fictitious and our peers will tease us for continuing to believe. We feel silly for believing.

With deities the belief continues into adulthood because our peers encourage the belief. If you don't believe in God then you are labeled a social pariah who can do only evil because you have no attachment to a fatherly God to keep you on the straight and narrow. We feel silly if we don't believe.

It's all in the psychology of peer pressure.

The science of pure speculation.

Atheism of course, is free from anything like peer pressure, especially as the gist of the arguments is that, unless you think as they do, you are a stupid, drooling, moron, whose deserves to be mocked and derided.
A minor correction. " ... unless you think - as they do - you are a stupid, drooling, moron, who deserves to be mocked and derided."

It was a minor punctuation error on your part, but important that it be corrected. Yes, we believe that thinking is important, and what separates the stupid, drooling moron, from the thoughtful person.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:17:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 6:15:37 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:52:27 AM, neutral wrote:
At 11/16/2014 12:36:23 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

Seriously? This topic again.

Fictitious characters, Santa, the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, etc., are childhood beliefs. Religious deities are beliefs that are still encouraged into maturity. This is why:

With silly childhood beliefs we eventually learn that its all fictitious and our peers will tease us for continuing to believe. We feel silly for believing.

With deities the belief continues into adulthood because our peers encourage the belief. If you don't believe in God then you are labeled a social pariah who can do only evil because you have no attachment to a fatherly God to keep you on the straight and narrow. We feel silly if we don't believe.

It's all in the psychology of peer pressure.

The science of pure speculation.

Atheism of course, is free from anything like peer pressure, especially as the gist of the arguments is that, unless you think as they do, you are a stupid, drooling, moron, whose deserves to be mocked and derided.
A minor correction. " ... unless you think - as they do - you are a stupid, drooling, moron, who deserves to be mocked and derided."

It was a minor punctuation error on your part, but important that it be corrected. Yes, we believe that thinking is important, and what separates the stupid, drooling moron, from the thoughtful person.

I'd rather make the occasional grammar error than allow my mind to be hijacked by the white hoods of cross burning bigotry and simple meanness.

And no, you only believe in putting other people down. Period.

That's not science of thinking - that is an emotional train wreck.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:30:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 10:01:28 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
There's many arguments backing up a necessary being.

not that I think any of your arguments will make any shade of sense... but regardless of that:
something being 'necessary' =/= God

Argument from objective morality
Relies upon unsupported and senseless assertions.

Transcendental argument
Relies upon unsupported and senseless assertions.

Argument from degrees of perfection
Similar to the above, particularly the first in that it relies upon suggesting that Our favorite things somehow have special claim to describing the fundamental nature of the universe.. just plain silly.

Argument from the origin of information
Relies upon a bastardization of language.

Teleological argument
natural processes

Kalam Cosmological argument

our particular universe is not apparent, also having a cause =/= God caused it.

and there's no reason to suggest Reality broadly has a cause..

and Ontological arguments to specify god's supposed characteristics are similar to some of the above:
Similar to the above, particularly the first in that it relies upon suggesting that Our favorite things somehow have special claim to describing the fundamental nature of the universe.. just plain silly.

Argument from contingency

no reason to say the Universe/ Reality broadly is dependent.

And similar to above, particular characteristics of god are unsupportable
Etc.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:32:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
our particular universe *needing a cause* is not apparent, also having a cause =/= God caused it.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 8:01:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here are some statements from shinning upcoming Atheist philosophers who specialize in the uprising branch called foolosophy. God save philosophy and intellectuality.

- There is no evidence, I am either ignorant and got this insight revealed unto me by my superior mind, or I am ignoring it. Whatever floats my boat.

- I am going to make an association fallacy by finding a similarity and rejecting everything that have that similarity (Nazis supported conservation of nature, Rejected!). Now, God is "undetected" like Santa Clause and Tooth Fairy, Rejected! However, I am going to make an exception for the laws of logic, math, thoughts, gravity, and my great great grandfather!

- Logic is not evidence! They are simply words. The letters you wrote is not a counterargument, they are a collection of digital bits appearing on a piece media.

- Although rejecting a sound argument is the same as rejecting reality by definition, I do not consider sound arguments evidence. I am awesome like that; bow before my superior metalogic.

- The existence of truth is a conjecture, but come one guys, gimme a break and pretend that my statement that truth is conjecture is truth :) .

- Truth about the universe are based on hard evidence. Too bad hard evidence are meaningless without using a thought process and accepting the first principles of logic and causality, none which I can find hard evidence for...

- Tell me what is the truth! Truth is an absolute concept that is exclusive and discriminatory. There is truth and not-truth/falseness. There is no in-between and no partial truths epistemologically. The two categories are, of course, mutually exclusive and highly discriminatory against each other. Tolerating falseness as some value is valuing not-truth, and is therefore false. The form of truth is absolute, but not-truth can take many form and have no restrictions other than being absolutely not true. Truth is independent of outside influence; it doesn't recognize or respond to opinion, no matter how we try to abuse or deny it. Truth cannot be eliminated or destroyed. It is ontologically necessary and epistemologically incorrigible. With no truth, there is no such thing as logical and rational; logic would be impossible, therefore our thoughts would have no value whatsoever.

Andrew Klavan & Bill Whittle: What is Truth?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpEr-PGWpLE
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 8:07:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:54:27 AM, jh1234lnew wrote:
Many atheists have compared deities of a lot of religions to fictional characters, such as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. However, deities are different than the tooth fairy, as the tooth fairy is openly stated to be fictitious, while deities are not. Deities also have logical evidence and arguments backing them, which many atheists dismiss as fundamentalist hogwash-even if it was made by a moderate religious person who used a lot of logical and scientific evidence.

What is the evidence that proves a deity?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 12:08:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 11:08:58 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:54:49 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:32:37 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 11/15/2014 10:22:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Yes it is. How do you think new truths are discovered about the universe? How did Einstein develop his theory of relativity (a true aspect of the universe) without using logical soundness to back up his theory?

So God invented math? Is math math because God created it that way? So in another universe God could create math the resulted in 2 + 2 = 5?

Logic is grounded in absolute truth. Absolute truth must exist in a way that can never be untrue. God is the absolute truth grounding all logic and rationality. So no, since God is a being of absolute truth, logic and rationality can never be untrue. So 2 + 2 wouldnt = 5.

Conjecture. Conjecture for days.

What is wrong with the argument logically?

The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too. The OP said there was evidence, and he has yet to present it.

That's like saying since there's a theory that the world is flat instead of spherical, we don't have valid evidence of the world being spherical. Logical arguments are evidence because they have predictive and explanatory power just as Einsteins theory of relativity did.

I'll never get how theists don't understand how evidence works. THERE ARE HEAPS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT PROVE THE EARTH IS ROUND. There is no room for debate, there is actual evidence humans can point to and say "Look, it's right there, proof of my assertion."

I was merely responding to your claim when you said "The reason why just arguments are not valid evidence in the God discussion is because there are arguments that going against the idea of a God too". I explained that there are arguments going against what is actually true but that doesn't make the truth any less true. Now, onto a different contention...

Is objective, physical evidence the only way to determine the existence of something?

Good arguments Ben.

Long ago, schools ( and societies) thought the young how to think. Thinking is not automatic. And what most people believe is thinking is, in fact, not.

Today they know nothing about the classical systems of thought, or of logic. They confuse their desires for thoughts, and define "evil" literally as, "Whatever I don't like".

If a person doesn't know or understand Einstein's theory of relativity and how he arrived at his logical conclusions sans empirical evidence, he will not understand how we can arrive at empirical truth through sheer logic. And this convo will be wasted on him.

Sad to say, thinking is a dying art.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 1:18:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Please don't let this be satire...
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:35:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God: demands your worship, your praise and above all, your obedience. And if you falter, an eternal hellfire awaits you.

Tooth Fairy: demands baby teeth

God: has amassed huge wealth and power from picking the pockets of the masses

Tooth Fairy: gives away money to the masses

God: wiped out every living thing on the planet to appease His vanity and selfishness.

Tooth Fairy: made children smile

I respect the Tooth Fairy.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth