Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ask an Agnostic

dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 6:34:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is your justification for agnosticism? What standard of evidence do you require for belief and knowledge?

Which philosophers/philosophies have most effected your agnostic/skeptical worldview?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 8:56:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

In what ways are you different than an atheist?
In what ways are you different than a theist?
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: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 8:58:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:56:18 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

In what ways are you different than an atheist?
In what ways are you different than a theist?

It's all overbloodyrated.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:09:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

So being you claim to be an agnostic, why is it that you are smart enough to grasp the a in front of gnostic, to know, means to not know.(if god exists) and not means to know god does not exist/ Yet, probably not bright enough to realize the same a in front of atheist, means to not believe in god, and not to believe there is no god. Why is there this inconsistency?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:09:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 8:58:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:56:18 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

In what ways are you different than an atheist?
In what ways are you different than a theist?

It's all overbloodyrated.

Pretty much.
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: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:22:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 9:09:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:58:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:56:18 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

In what ways are you different than an atheist?
In what ways are you different than a theist?

It's all overbloodyrated.

Pretty much.

73degrees @ 2;30am.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:41:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 9:22:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/13/2014 9:09:57 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:58:54 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/13/2014 8:56:18 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

In what ways are you different than an atheist?
In what ways are you different than a theist?

It's all overbloodyrated.

Pretty much.

73degrees @ 2;30am.

It's flipping 43degrees at 9:40am. I need to move to the land down under.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:48:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

I see that Atheists feel threatened by you.

Hehehe
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 9:55:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

Are you a Pastafarian? If so, have you been touched by his noodley appendage, RAmen.
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
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:49:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.

Do you understand the difference in the concepts of Gnosticism vs Theism?

Example is me being an agnostic theist compared to gnostic theists (though I pray none exist.)
Nevearo
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:07:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 9:48:45 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.



I see that Atheists feel threatened by you.

Hehehe

actually we're just trying to get him to come out. Agnostic when said generally implies a lack of belief in god. That means... ATHIEST.
Defining terms is a first step to understanding.

Agnostic means without knowledge. Itdis a different stance than Atheism. You can be a Gnostic or an Agnostic version of an Atheist or Theist.

If he lacks belief in god but doesn't know, Agnostic Atheism.
If he believes in god but doesn't know, Agnostic Theism
If he knows that god exists, Gnostic Theist.
If he knows that god doesn't exist, Gnostic Atheist.

Example... I know the Christian god does not exist. I am a Gnostic Atheist on that issue.
If I were to change my position and say he might exist but I don't believe so, or that I don't know, I would be an Agnostic Atheist.
Pascal's wager is for Agnostic Theists.

That explain the atheist actions for you? It isn't he threatens us. We just want him to know what he is. Atheists experience real discrimination, and people coming out helps us all.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:56:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So is a thread where we just ask questions and the phantom OP never replies?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 12:03:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 9:48:45 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 12:37:39 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
Ask me anything regarding religion and my beliefs. I'm agnostic, not an atheist. Or a theist.



I see that Atheists feel threatened by you.

Hehehe

No more so than we would be by adults who can drive a car, raise children, vote for the president, and aren't sure whether or not Santa Claus is real.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

swap the word god in each of those arguments for fairies, there you go.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:14:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:57:55 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

swap the word god in each of those arguments for fairies, there you go.

P1: Logical absolutes exist
P2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entities
P3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author.
C1: This author is fairies.

P1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence
P4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universe.
C1: This first cause is fairies

P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then it has a fine tuner
P2: The universe is finely tuned
C1: The universe has a fine tuner
P3: If the universe has a fine tuner, it is all-powerful and all-knowing, and the creator (fairies)
C2: The universes" fine tuner is fairies

yeah... no.
All of those arguments are absurd because fairies do not have any of the mentioned characteristics-- they are not all-knowing, all-powerful, transcendent, infinite, etc. Fairies, along with all the other sh!tty analogies Beastt used, do not have any of the explanatory power that makes God's existence plausible. Please refrain from making dumb analogies in the future.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.
bebil10
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 4:51:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:14:23 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:57:55 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

swap the word god in each of those arguments for fairies, there you go.

P1: Logical absolutes exist
P2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entities
P3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author.
C1: This author is fairies.

P1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence
P4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universe.
C1: This first cause is fairies

P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then it has a fine tuner
P2: The universe is finely tuned
C1: The universe has a fine tuner
P3: If the universe has a fine tuner, it is all-powerful and all-knowing, and the creator (fairies)
C2: The universes" fine tuner is fairies

yeah... no.
All of those arguments are absurd because fairies do not have any of the mentioned characteristics-- they are not all-knowing, all-powerful, transcendent, infinite, etc. Fairies, along with all the other sh!tty analogies Beastt used, do not have any of the explanatory power that makes God's existence plausible. Please refrain from making dumb analogies in the future.

Ah so how cute, you want to define god with certain characteristics but you won't let fairies be transcendental or have any of these characteristics. You realize we are talking about fictional beings in both cases so they all are magical beings who could meet these definitions.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:11:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:56:07 AM, tabularasa wrote:
So is a thread where we just ask questions and the phantom OP never replies?

Apparently so.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.

An argument doesn't have to conclusively prove X in order to make X a plausible idea.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:39:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 5:33:37 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.

An argument doesn't have to conclusively prove X in order to make X a plausible idea.

Were not talking about conclusively proving anything. We're talking about producing a simple argument in which the conclusion follows from the premise. No one has been able to do so with any reasonable definition of God.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:41:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 5:39:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:33:37 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.

An argument doesn't have to conclusively prove X in order to make X a plausible idea.

Were not talking about conclusively proving anything. We're talking about producing a simple argument in which the conclusion follows from the premise. No one has been able to do so with any reasonable definition of God.

I didn't claim that any of the syllogistic arguments for God are sound...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:42:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 5:41:25 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:39:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:33:37 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.

An argument doesn't have to conclusively prove X in order to make X a plausible idea.

Were not talking about conclusively proving anything. We're talking about producing a simple argument in which the conclusion follows from the premise. No one has been able to do so with any reasonable definition of God.

I didn't claim that any of the syllogistic arguments for God are sound...

Not looking for sound, just valid.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:43:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 4:51:55 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:14:23 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:57:55 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

swap the word god in each of those arguments for fairies, there you go.

P1: Logical absolutes exist
P2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entities
P3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author.
C1: This author is fairies.

P1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence
P4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universe.
C1: This first cause is fairies

P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then it has a fine tuner
P2: The universe is finely tuned
C1: The universe has a fine tuner
P3: If the universe has a fine tuner, it is all-powerful and all-knowing, and the creator (fairies)
C2: The universes" fine tuner is fairies

yeah... no.
All of those arguments are absurd because fairies do not have any of the mentioned characteristics-- they are not all-knowing, all-powerful, transcendent, infinite, etc. Fairies, along with all the other sh!tty analogies Beastt used, do not have any of the explanatory power that makes God's existence plausible. Please refrain from making dumb analogies in the future.

Ah so how cute, you want to define god with certain characteristics but you won't let fairies be transcendental or have any of these characteristics. You realize we are talking about fictional beings in both cases so they all are magical beings who could meet these definitions.

If you were to define a fairy as "all-knowing, all-powerful, transcendent, infinite, etc", it would no longer be a fairy... it would be God.
God has explanatory power *because* he has those attributes.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:43:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 4:51:55 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:14:23 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:57:55 PM, bebil10 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

swap the word god in each of those arguments for fairies, there you go.

P1: Logical absolutes exist
P2: Logical absolutes and laws transcend physical matter and entities
P3: Transcendental Logical laws should not be able to exist without a similarly transcendent author.
C1: This author is fairies.

P1: Whatever has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence
P4: The cause of the universe must be uncaused, eternal, and infinitely powerful in order to exist and create the universe.
C1: This first cause is fairies

P1: If the universe is finely tuned, then it has a fine tuner
P2: The universe is finely tuned
C1: The universe has a fine tuner
P3: If the universe has a fine tuner, it is all-powerful and all-knowing, and the creator (fairies)
C2: The universes" fine tuner is fairies

yeah... no.
All of those arguments are absurd because fairies do not have any of the mentioned characteristics-- they are not all-knowing, all-powerful, transcendent, infinite, etc. Fairies, along with all the other sh!tty analogies Beastt used, do not have any of the explanatory power that makes God's existence plausible. Please refrain from making dumb analogies in the future.

Ah so how cute, you want to define god with certain characteristics but you won't let fairies be transcendental or have any of these characteristics. You realize we are talking about fictional beings in both cases so they all are magical beings who could meet these definitions.

If you define fairies to be immaterial, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.. then you are completely changing the traditional idea of what a fairy is and replacing the entity with Godliness.

Rose by any other name smells like a a rose.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,965
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:45:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
God is a supreme mind. The arguments themselves don't identify "who" God is beyond some characteristics of this mind.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:46:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 5:42:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:41:25 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:39:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:33:37 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.

An argument doesn't have to conclusively prove X in order to make X a plausible idea.

Were not talking about conclusively proving anything. We're talking about producing a simple argument in which the conclusion follows from the premise. No one has been able to do so with any reasonable definition of God.

I didn't claim that any of the syllogistic arguments for God are sound...

Not looking for sound, just valid.

...that's a new one... even the most ridiculous arguments can be valid.

P1: If grass is green, God exists
P2: Grass is green
C1: God exists
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 5:48:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 5:46:10 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:42:37 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:41:25 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:39:16 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 5:33:37 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 2:54:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:21:09 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 12/13/2014 1:18:38 AM, Beastt wrote:
Are you agnostic regarding all unevidenced entities, (i.e. fairies, Leprechauns, unicorns, mermaids, gremlins, etc.), or just in regard to God? Why?

Please provide an argument for the existence of fairies that is even half as compelling as the fine-tuning argument, cosmological argument, or transcendental argument for the existence of God....

Compelling arguments are meaningless when they can be shown invalid with minimal scrutiny. The end result is the same, the believer believes because he wants to.

An argument doesn't have to conclusively prove X in order to make X a plausible idea.

Were not talking about conclusively proving anything. We're talking about producing a simple argument in which the conclusion follows from the premise. No one has been able to do so with any reasonable definition of God.

I didn't claim that any of the syllogistic arguments for God are sound...

Not looking for sound, just valid.

...that's a new one... even the most ridiculous arguments can be valid.

P1: If grass is green, God exists
P2: Grass is green
C1: God exists

I was assuming the argument being put forward would be a reasonable attempt. If not then no need to bother.