Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Opposition to God's Existence

ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 8:17:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think this may be interesting, and, as so, I have this request: present your opposition to God's existence if it is axiomatical.
If you wish to disprove the omnipotence/presence/science of the God of the Bible or just "God" in general, then by all means do so.
Again, this is just out of interest; I think we should take time to just study each other's responses and learn form them before arguing. It may be helpful.
Arguments for God's existence are welcomed as well.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 8:39:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 8:17:52 PM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
I think this may be interesting, and, as so, I have this request: present your opposition to God's existence if it is axiomatical.
If you wish to disprove the omnipotence/presence/science of the God of the Bible or just "God" in general, then by all means do so.
Again, this is just out of interest; I think we should take time to just study each other's responses and learn form them before arguing. It may be helpful.
Arguments for God's existence are welcomed as well.

It will be as interesting as asking someone to present their opposition to Mother Natures existence.
Are you opposed to her existence? Do you doubt she exists?
If so, why do you doubt?
Is Nature not enough evidence of Mother Natures existence?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 8:51:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 8:17:52 PM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
I think this may be interesting, and, as so, I have this request: present your opposition to God's existence if it is axiomatical.
If you wish to disprove the omnipotence/presence/science of the God of the Bible or just "God" in general, then by all means do so.
Again, this is just out of interest; I think we should take time to just study each other's responses and learn form them before arguing. It may be helpful.
Arguments for God's existence are welcomed as well.

I'm sorry, but I think there's little chance of you being able to start the type of discussion you seem to wish to. For some reason people don't seem to be able to discuss God as if he were a realistic entity, even when they claim to follow him.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 5:08:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 8:17:52 PM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
I think this may be interesting, and, as so, I have this request: present your opposition to God's existence if it is axiomatical.
If you wish to disprove the omnipotence/presence/science of the God of the Bible or just "God" in general, then by all means do so.
Again, this is just out of interest; I think we should take time to just study each other's responses and learn form them before arguing. It may be helpful.
Arguments for God's existence are welcomed as well.

For comparative purposes, can we consider 3 things atheists accept as having objective evidence? How about....

1. Evolution
2. Love
3. Dark Matter

The question is, (after we agree on what is evidence) can the claim that God exists be rejected based on the rules which cause us to accept the 3 things above?

Why does the atheist agree (those that do) that the claim "love exists" is true? Is there a principle of evidence for the claim "love exists" that could not be correctly applied to the claim "God exists"?

Well, says the atheist. At least we know that WE exist, so it is within possibility that the claim that we might contain within us a quality called love is reasonable. But that in no way is the point. Why does the quality have to be "contained" in something else? And we aren't trying to find out "reasonable" claims, but true ones.

The fact is that atheists believe love exists for 2 simple reasons. One is the testimony of others, and the second is that they have felt it in their own hearts. Why would both of these conditions be wrong as evidence for God but acceptable as evidence for love?
That seems to be an arbitrary and irrational judgment.

How about evolution? Why do atheists believe (those that do) that evolution is true? Most take it on the authority of experts with something akin to faith. They don't know the fact themselves, and cannot show or understand any evidence themselves. The only other reason for taking evolution as true is to assume a link between what have only and always been observed as static conditions in plants and animals. It may be a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption none-the -less.

But how is it that the principle on which the atheist makes the assumption of a connection between a fossil and a living creature right for evolution, but wrong when a theist assumes a connection between a Living God and a living creature? It isn't different. The atheists simply equivocates on his principles. Giving evolution a pass but denying access to God, with no reasonable explanation for why the same principle is suddenly not applicable.

And this is why so many of them will claim there is no evidence, or that they have never seen any evidence, for God. They have an automatic filter on the principles they use that prohibits its use on any application to God. This is like arriving at truth by declaration, rather than by logic.

The atheist will cry "Science, Science!!" But this is just what the theist is doing. Science is observation, experimentation, and duplication. ALL scientific observation since time began has shown that life only comes from pre-existing life. All experimentation since time began has shown that life only come from pre-existing life. Over and over, since time began, this principle has been duplicated everywhere on the Earth everytime.

Yet the atheist, who claims to respect science as his only mode to physical truth, will ditch all the science in a heartbeat for an irrational belief which flies against all we have learned from science about life since the world began.

No Sir. Life itself is scientific evidence for God.

This means that scientific predictions can be made based on this claim. Here is one.

1. No matter how well man can assemble the physical parts that constitute a living organism, he will NEVER have a living thing. To be blunt, life cannot be "created", only duplicated.

My body may have billions of cells, but I know it began with one cell. The evidence of the existence of that one cell are the very cells of my body today! That first cell MUST have existed. The existence of life today demands the existence of God.

Which is why, though all the science points only to life from life,the atheist MUST ignore it and pretend that there is some evidence for life from non-life.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 5:49:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 8:17:52 PM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
I think this may be interesting, and, as so, I have this request: present your opposition to God's existence if it is axiomatical.
If you wish to disprove the omnipotence/presence/science of the God of the Bible or just "God" in general, then by all means do so.
Again, this is just out of interest; I think we should take time to just study each other's responses and learn form them before arguing. It may be helpful.
Arguments for God's existence are welcomed as well.

A priori existance, probably most asinine philosophy I have ever come across.

/thread
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 6:22:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How about....

1. Evolution
2. Love
3. Dark Matter

Beware of the black & white fallacy...

The question is, (after we agree on what is evidence) can the claim that God exists be rejected based on the rules which cause us to accept the 3 things above?

Why does the atheist agree (those that do) that the claim "love exists" is true? Is there a principle of evidence for the claim "love exists" that could not be correctly applied to the claim "God exists"?

Well, says the atheist. At least we know that WE exist, so it is within possibility that the claim that we might contain within us a quality called love is reasonable. But that in no way is the point. Why does the quality have to be "contained" in something else? And we aren't trying to find out "reasonable" claims, but true ones.

The fact is that atheists believe love exists for 2 simple reasons. One is the testimony of others, and the second is that they have felt it in their own hearts. Why would both of these conditions be wrong as evidence for God but acceptable as evidence for love?
That seems to be an arbitrary and irrational judgment.

Love is an incorrigable mental state, we have an experience that we associate under the label 'love' that seems to arise from generalised behavior (family members, spouse, etc.). However that is not to say that this incorrigable mental state states anything about ontology. Love only 'exists' as far as we can label a generalised mental state. Similarly, while you have the incorrigable mental state of having colour sensations that you associate with the computer screen, the fsct you are having those sensations is not sufficient to say anything about the ontology of that computer screen. It may or may not 'exist' as an entity.

Love as we understand it, is a purely internal state, and thus doesn't have any 'existance' outside of our experience, and is not equivilent as a result to a believe, or even "experience" of God. Clearly people do have an experience which they associate with the label "God", but like love, that experience is simply insufficient, and. In principle incapable of stating anything about the existance of the associated entity. It's simply the wronf tool for the job.

How about evolution? Why do atheists believe (those that do) that evolution is true? Most take it on the authority of experts with something akin to faith. They don't know the fact themselves, and cannot show or understand any evidence themselves. The only other reason for taking evolution as true is to assume a link between what have only and always been observed as static conditions in plants and animals. It may be a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption none-the -less.

I don't think you understand evolutionary theory very well. Given what I read in that paragraph. But I don't think people should accept what they don't understand to be true, and only make a pragmatic decision based on authority. E.g. The President is not going to have the time or resources to learn climate change in detail, thus for pragmatics he will accept his expert's opinion in the field and make practice decisions based on that.

So, yes there is an element of trust there, but it again doesn't state anything inherent about ontology.

But how is it that the principle on which the atheist makes the assumption of a connection between a fossil and a living creature right for evolution, but wrong when a theist assumes a connection between a Living God and a living creature? It isn't different. The atheists simply equivocates on his principles. Giving evolution a pass but denying access to God, with no reasonable explanation for why the same principle is suddenly not applicable.

If the scientific rigor and success was emulated in the God hypothesis by even a fraction of what it is today in modern evolutionary theory, then God's existance would be beyond question. Modern evolutionary theory works on inference to the best emanation, and there are a LOT of criteria for that, of which you clearly only have a superficial understanding.

And this is why so many of them will claim there is no evidence, or that they have never seen any evidence, for God. They have an automatic filter on the principles they use that prohibits its use on any application to God. This is like arriving at truth by declaration, rather than by logic

Perhaps you should read some of my debates. Stop generalising, it's simply asinine, you don't see me generalising theists this way, it's completely retarded. My debate with ChristusExemplar is a good overview of the case regarding God's explanatory power.

http://www.debate.org...

The atheist will cry "Science, Science!!" But this is just what the theist is doing. Science is observation, experimentation, and duplication. ALL scientific observation since time began has shown that life only comes from pre-existing life. All experimentation since time began has shown that life only come from pre-existing life. Over and over, since time began, this principle has been duplicated everywhere on the Earth everytime.

Science is a methodological application of empiricism, and so far has been our most successful method for getting inferences from a posterori experience to principles that are developed a priori.

You can mentally masturbate all day, but without a connection to reality,mother your armchair ohilosophy is going to be on dubious ground unless you can somehow understand all of reality a priori (good luck!). You conflate scientific laws, which are just generalised observations, and are inherently *descriptive*, with scientific theories, which provide explanatory power, and are to a large degree prescriptive.

"Life coming from life", or the law of biogenesis, is descriptive, and provides zero explanatory power, it's just a generalised observation. It states nothing about the nature of the observation. Our understand of evolution and modern understanding of life has significantly blurred the boundaries of life & non life in recent years, thus it becomes a rather useless law. The world simply cannot be described in neat and tidy categories and packages, it's messier than that I am afraid.

Yet the atheist, who claims to respect science as his only mode to physical truth, will ditch all the science in a heartbeat for an irrational belief which flies against all we have learned from science about life since the world began.

No Sir. Life itself is scientific evidence for God.

You also clearly have a very superficial understanding of inductive reading. Please read up on it.

This means that scientific predictions can be made based on this claim. Here is one.

1. No matter how well man can assemble the physical parts that constitute a living organism, he will NEVER have a living thing. To be blunt, life cannot be "created", only duplicated.

1. Show the logical progression from "God exists" to this "prediction (seems you pulled this out of your arse).
2. It's false, IVF works precisely because we can break and reassemble a cell from it's parts. We can so to for many of the organelles, such as mitochondria, too.

My body may have billions of cells, but I know it began with one cell. The evidence of the existence of that one cell are the very cells of my body today! That first cell MUST have existed. The existence of life today demands the existence of God.

Wtf? No logical progression, this doesn't even warrant a rebuttal.

Which is why, though all the science points only to life from life,the atheist MUST ignore it and pretend that there is some evidence for life from non-life.

Your case has been spectacularly incoherent, based on no logical progression, false equivocates, and a very poor understanding of what science is, and what ontology and epistemology does. Not impressed.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 11:30:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 6:22:05 AM, Envisage wrote:
How about....

1. Evolution
2. Love
3. Dark Matter

Beware of the black & white fallacy...

I'd rather look out for someone poisoning the well.....

The question is, (after we agree on what is evidence) can the claim that God exists be rejected based on the rules which cause us to accept the 3 things above?

Why does the atheist agree (those that do) that the claim "love exists" is true?

Love is an incorrigable mental state, we have an experience that we associate under the label 'love' that seems to arise from generalised behavior (family members, spouse, etc.). However that is not to say that this incorrigable mental state states anything about ontology. Love only 'exists' as far as we can label a generalised mental state.

Lol. Your only access to the empirical world is your mental state! In order to dodge a question you cannot answer, you are willing to ditch all human perception as not stating "anything about ontology." Wow. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Love as we understand it, is a purely internal state, and thus doesn't have any 'existance' outside of our experience,.....

Do your thoughts? No? Yet you think your thoughts are real. What about you? Not your body or your brain, YOU. Are you real? Do you have any 'existence' outside of your experience?

....and is not equivilent as a result to a believe, or even "experience" of God.

Love is in fact itself an experience which we take in with our senses, just like all our other experiences. I have said nothing about experiencing God. The question was, can the claim that God exists be rejected based on the rules which cause us to accept the 3 things above?

Clearly people do have an experience which they associate with the label "God", but like love, that experience is simply insufficient, and. In principle incapable of stating anything about the existance of the associated entity. It's simply the wronf tool for the job.

For your job perhaps, but for the "job" your trying to substitute, no.

You're jumping ahead of yourself. The point now is that the same filter the atheists uses to accept that Love exists, or dark matter, also qualifies God. Love being an internal experience is irrelevant and an arbitrary restriction. All our experiences are internal.

How about evolution? Why do atheists believe (those that do) that evolution is true? Most take it on the authority of experts with something akin to faith. They don't know the fact themselves, and cannot show or understand any evidence themselves. The only other reason for taking evolution as true is to assume a link between what have only and always been observed as static conditions in plants and animals. It may be a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption none-the -less.

I don't think you understand evolutionary theory very well. Given what I read in that paragraph.

Was it untrue?

But I don't think people should accept what they don't understand to be true, and only make a pragmatic decision based on authority. E.g. The President is not going to have the time or resources to learn climate change in detail, thus for pragmatics he will accept his expert's opinion in the field and make practice decisions based on that.

You could have saved yourself all that writing and just said, "I agree with you."

So, yes there is an element of trust there, but it again doesn't state anything inherent about ontology.

It doesn't need to. Perhaps you aren't simply missing the point. Perhaps you are trying to avoid it. The fact is that atheists are ready and willing to fully accept facts they cannot verify based on only their respect for an authority figure they like. Why do they resist that same right in others?

But how is it that the principle on which the atheist makes the assumption of a connection between a fossil and a living creature right for evolution, but wrong when a theist assumes a connection between a Living God and a living creature? It isn't different. The atheists simply equivocates on his principles. Giving evolution a pass but denying access to God, with no reasonable explanation for why the same principle is suddenly not applicable.

If the scientific rigor and success was emulated in the God hypothesis by even a fraction of what it is today in modern evolutionary theory, then God's existance would be beyond question.

If you actually believed this you wouldn't be doing the two-step right now. There is a solid logical argument from life today, to original life. Just as there is an argument for life today, to a single ancestor. It's the same basic logic.

Modern evolutionary theory works on inference to the best emanation, and there are a LOT of criteria for that, of which you clearly only have a superficial understanding.

Are you through scoring your points? Ok, now we can continue debating. Evolution assumes a connection between the fossil and the organism we see today. It is a connection that is logically inferred, but it is still an assumption.

I am not attacking evolution, which of course you will knee-jerk into without preamble. I am saying the logical processes and assumptions used for evolution also work for God because the logic is the same, and the reasons to assume the next logical step just as strong.

Perhaps you should read some of my debates. Stop generalising, it's simply asinine, you don't see me generalising theists this way, it's completely retarded.

I see you do it all the time, and it is retarded. But only when someone other than you does it.

My debate with ChristusExemplar is a good overview of the case regarding God's explanatory power.

I'm not arguing for God explanatory power. You would like it to be that, but it isn't. I'm not pitting God against evolution. Please grab hold of your knees and breathe.

The atheist will cry "Science, Science!!" But this is just what the theist is doing. Science is observation, experimentation, and duplication. ALL scientific observation since time began has shown that life only comes from pre-existing life. All experimentation since time began has shown that life only come from pre-existing life. Over and over, since time began, this principle has been duplicated everywhere on the Earth everytime.

Science is a methodological application of empiricism, and so far has been our most successful method for getting inferences from a posterori experience to principles that are developed a priori.

You can mentally masturbate all day, but without a connection to reality,mother your armchair ohilosophy is going to be on dubious ground unless you can somehow understand all of reality a priori (good luck!).

You're still here knee-jerking your defense of science. No one is attacking science.

You conflate scientific laws, which are just generalised observations, and are inherently *descriptive*, with scientific theories, which provide explanatory power, and are to a large degree prescriptive.

I haven't reached that far yet. Theories are built on what we observe of the natural world. Observation and experimentation are used to form theories. But for some reason, when it comes to life, scientists have ignored all the observation and all the experimentation in favor of a theory which is built on nothing. A theory which flies against all observation and all experimentation to date.

Should not the theories jive with observation and experimentation?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 11:57:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 6:22:05 AM, Envisage wrote:

You can mentally masturbate all day, but without a connection to reality,mother your armchair ohilosophy is going to be on dubious ground unless you can somehow understand all of reality a priori (good luck!). You conflate scientific laws, which are just generalised observations, and are inherently *descriptive*, with scientific theories, which provide explanatory power, and are to a large degree prescriptive.

Show us how so.

"Life coming from life", or the law of biogenesis, is descriptive, and provides zero explanatory power, it's just a generalised observation.

No one has said otherwise. The reason it is a generalized observation is that it has been found to be universally true. We have no reason to believe it was ever not true.

It states nothing about the nature of the observation.

It doesn't have to. It is simply an observation found to be universally true, even for places other than Earth. Again we find that the universe is uniform and that it behaves uniformly everywhere. But it is observations like this which are the bedrock of science.

Our understand of evolution and modern understanding of life has significantly blurred the boundaries of life & non life in recent years, thus it becomes a rather useless law.

Totally untrue. The law still holds as true today as it did 2,000 years ago. Our understanding of life has made us quit the silly experimentations of early science where scientists were trying to get life to occur spontaneously. We see now that life is far too complex for spontaneous generation, and comes only from previous life.

The world simply cannot be described in neat and tidy categories and packages, it's messier than that I am afraid.

You should be afraid. I have stated only an observation which has been verified for thousands of years by millions of observations. You are yammering about tidy categories and packages. Attempts at diversion will be diverted.

Yet the atheist, who claims to respect science as his only mode to physical truth, will ditch all the science in a heartbeat for an irrational belief which flies against all we have learned from science about life since the world began.

No Sir. Life itself is scientific evidence for God.

This means that scientific predictions can be made based on this claim. Here is one.

1. No matter how well man can assemble the physical parts that constitute a living organism, he will NEVER have a living thing. To be blunt, life cannot be "created", only duplicated.

1. Show the logical progression from "God exists" to this "prediction (seems you pulled this out of your arse).

Life exists
life only comes from life.
the universe had a beginning
life in the universe must have had a beginning from outside life
that outside life must have pre-existed the universe
that outside life is original life
that original life is God
God exists
The existence of life today demands the existence of God.

2. It's false, IVF works precisely because we can break and reassemble a cell from it's parts. We can so to for many of the organelles, such as mitochondria, too.

IVF is not creation of new life at all. And to say we can break and reassemble a cell from it's parts is blatantly untrue. None of those techniques work unless we first have an already living cell.

My body may have billions of cells, but I know it began with one cell. The evidence of the existence of that one cell are the very cells of my body today! That first cell MUST have existed. The existence of life today demands the existence of God.

Wtf? No logical progression, this doesn't even warrant a rebuttal.

lol. Ok.

Which is why, though all the science points only to life from life, the atheist MUST ignore it and pretend that there is some evidence for life from non-life.

Your case has been spectacularly incoherent, based on no logical progression, false equivocates, and a very poor understanding of what science is, and what ontology and epistemology does. Not impressed.

Boo hoo, impressing you was my main intent.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 12:58:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Once scientists discovered how idiots were created, their need to find out how life was created became less urgent.
The planet is teeming with life. The need therefore is to improve the quality of life and not create more of the same.
When scientists discovered the scriptures read by 2 billion Christians did not even meet the math and science requirements for a grade 6 schooler, they identified the bible as a single source of adult math and science illiteracy. The theory that idiots are created found a correlation between bible readers and their lower proficiency in the sciences.
Are scientists biased when they conclude the bible suppresses intelligent behaviour. A study discovered 80% of criminals in our prisons are Christians. Were they caught because they were less intelligent or because they made less intelligent choices?
Are Christians doomed because scientists have given little credibility to their religious indoctrination and are all their studies just oppositions to Christian beliefs? Or should they supplement their reading with more practical material after seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.