Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ranked list of least persuasive arguments

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:20:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is already a thread which allows you to list your most faith shaking arguments. Let's do the inverse. Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion.

My list:
5. Personal Experience
You saw/experienced something? Cool story. How do you differentiate between something that requires a God, and something that just happens inside your head?

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

What is worse is that atheists generally hold the bible in high disregard anyway, thus it is never going to be a good argument against them. While a Christian is already vested in the book, virtually nobody else is.

2. Modal Ontological Argument
When 95+% of people who run this argument doesn't even understand basic subjunctive possibilities, basic modal logic, and doesn't even understand what the concept of a necessary being entails - this argument just becomes one big fat equivocation which reeks even to those unfamiliar with the logical system behind it.

The MOA and its modal cousins, including modal arguments for atheism I dint think has ever oersuaded any atheist or theist, ever. It's an exceptional waste of time too when virtually nobody is going to understand it let alone be convinced by it

1. Moral Argument
An argument from ignorance, combined with a premise which 99% of atheists are going to be apathetic towards (and one I outright reject from nihilism) - Good luck ever persuading any atheist with this.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:28:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Pascal's wager. Because faith should be a cynical gamble, lol.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:32:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Burning in the bosom"-- argument for Mormonism. You just "feel it to be true in your heart." Related to your "personal experience" argument.

The Shroud of Turin-- allegedly the most pivotal physical evidence that Jesus existed. Related to your point on Jesus.

Numerology-- I've seen this used by Muslims to point out the divine origins of the Quran and by Christian "prophets" attempting to foretell the Second Coming.

And good ole appeal to popularity-- millions of people can't be wrong! Never mind the millions (or billions) who disagree...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:37:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:20:02 PM, Envisage wrote:

1. Moral Argument
An argument from ignorance, combined with a premise which 99% of atheists are going to be apathetic towards (and one I outright reject from nihilism) - Good luck ever persuading any atheist with this.

It convinced C.S. Lewis.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:38:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:20:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
There is already a thread which allows you to list your most faith shaking arguments. Let's do the inverse. Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion.

My list:
5. Personal Experience
You saw/experienced something? Cool story. How do you differentiate between something that requires a God, and something that just happens inside your head?

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

What is worse is that atheists generally hold the bible in high disregard anyway, thus it is never going to be a good argument against them. While a Christian is already vested in the book, virtually nobody else is.

2. Modal Ontological Argument
When 95+% of people who run this argument doesn't even understand basic subjunctive possibilities, basic modal logic, and doesn't even understand what the concept of a necessary being entails - this argument just becomes one big fat equivocation which reeks even to those unfamiliar with the logical system behind it.

The MOA and its modal cousins, including modal arguments for atheism I dint think has ever oersuaded any atheist or theist, ever. It's an exceptional waste of time too when virtually nobody is going to understand it let alone be convinced by it

1. Moral Argument
An argument from ignorance, combined with a premise which 99% of atheists are going to be apathetic towards (and one I outright reject from nihilism) - Good luck ever persuading any atheist with this.

Where is Pascal's Wager? That is by far the worst argument.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:41:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
97% of xyz scientific discipline are atheists. Since many scientists are atheist God must not exist.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:44:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:32:04 PM, Fly wrote:
The Shroud of Turin-- allegedly the most pivotal physical evidence that Jesus existed. Related to your point on Jesus.

I like that one! ;-)
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,860
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:44:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:20:02 PM, Envisage wrote:
There is already a thread which allows you to list your most faith shaking arguments. Let's do the inverse. Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion.

My list:
5. Personal Experience
You saw/experienced something? Cool story. How do you differentiate between something that requires a God, and something that just happens inside your head?

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

What is worse is that atheists generally hold the bible in high disregard anyway, thus it is never going to be a good argument against them. While a Christian is already vested in the book, virtually nobody else is.

2. Modal Ontological Argument
When 95+% of people who run this argument doesn't even understand basic subjunctive possibilities, basic modal logic, and doesn't even understand what the concept of a necessary being entails - this argument just becomes one big fat equivocation which reeks even to those unfamiliar with the logical system behind it.

The MOA and its modal cousins, including modal arguments for atheism I dint think has ever oersuaded any atheist or theist, ever. It's an exceptional waste of time too when virtually nobody is going to understand it let alone be convinced by it

1. Moral Argument
An argument from ignorance, combined with a premise which 99% of atheists are going to be apathetic towards (and one I outright reject from nihilism) - Good luck ever persuading any atheist with this.

Making your entire argument pointing out the fallacies of the other user.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:28:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Pascal's wager. Because faith should be a cynical gamble, lol.

I think Pascal's wager works better for an already-existing believer. Since it is risky for the believer to think about disbelieving, since they are already committed to their position. Mind trap in a sense.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Probably the least persuasive arguments I've seen is the argument that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God therefore God does not exist, and I've repeated why many times over lol. This seems to be the backbone of all materialist mindset that I've seen, but IMO it is an argument from ignorance and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the nature of spirit.

The other for me would be that the idea of believing in a Creator is like that of believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy or whatever little fantasy character you want to inject. Not only is it off topic but also demonstrates a real lack of integrity in the thought process. This for me is an immediate face palm.
I've engaged many atheists who for some reason think the idea of creation is stupid, as opposed to a random chance universe.... Lol that is ridiculous, that is backwards thinking if I've ever heard period. Creation is a far superior idea, not even comparable.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 5:58:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:41:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
97% of xyz scientific discipline are atheists. Since many scientists are atheist God must not exist.

But I think this stat goes toward showing that the more educated and logical and knowledgeable a person becomes, the less the chances are that they are going to believe in god. It also stands to reason that most of these scientists have a collective IQ higher than that of the general layman public.

Ergo..."the smarter somebody is the better chance is for them being Atheist." Which in turn leads to....."the less intelligent (dumber) somebody is, the better chance is that they are religious. And believe in God.

So...there must be a resaon for this. Yes?

Like: less intelligent people also engage in activities like watching pro wrestling and Jerry Springer?

If you had your choice with group: Jerry Springer watchers or members of the NAS (national academy for the sciences) would you rather watch your kids? Advise you on life matters? Ask for advice? Trust with your credit cards.

Why?

Why are the poor nations the ones that are the most religious? And the atheist countries enjoy higher quality of living, generally speaking?

Seems prayer does not work, eh?

There is absolutley zero evidence for god.

Thus to believe is to indulge in wishful thinking. Which, when taken to extremes is deemed to be a from of psychosis by mental health professionals.

Too..along those lines: one of the most common aspects ot schizophrenia is fervent and unwarranted, zealous, religious belief?

Why?

Why is not a common form of schizophrenia a successful test score to enter MENSA? Or the NAS?

Intellectually and mentally-balanced speaking, seems everything and everyone associated with belief in an imaginary friend they call god is negative. Injurious to a healthy life and mental acuity.

Yes?
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:04:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:58:08 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/9/2015 5:41:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
97% of xyz scientific discipline are atheists. Since many scientists are atheist God must not exist.

But I think this stat goes toward showing that the more educated and logical and knowledgeable a person becomes, the less the chances are that they are going to believe in god. It also stands to reason that most of these scientists have a collective IQ higher than that of the general layman public.

Ergo..."the smarter somebody is the better chance is for them being Atheist." Which in turn leads to....."the less intelligent (dumber) somebody is, the better chance is that they are religious. And believe in God.

So...there must be a resaon for this. Yes?

Like: less intelligent people also engage in activities like watching pro wrestling and Jerry Springer?

If you had your choice with group: Jerry Springer watchers or members of the NAS (national academy for the sciences) would you rather watch your kids? Advise you on life matters? Ask for advice? Trust with your credit cards.

Why?

Why are the poor nations the ones that are the most religious? And the atheist countries enjoy higher quality of living, generally speaking?

Seems prayer does not work, eh?

There is absolutley zero evidence for god.

Thus to believe is to indulge in wishful thinking. Which, when taken to extremes is deemed to be a from of psychosis by mental health professionals.

Too..along those lines: one of the most common aspects ot schizophrenia is fervent and unwarranted, zealous, religious belief?

Why?

Why is not a common form of schizophrenia a successful test score to enter MENSA? Or the NAS?

Intellectually and mentally-balanced speaking, seems everything and everyone associated with belief in an imaginary friend they call god is negative. Injurious to a healthy life and mental acuity.

Yes?

Thank-you for proving my point.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:07:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 5:50:22 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Probably the least persuasive arguments I've seen is the argument that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God therefore God does not exist, and I've repeated why many times over lol. This seems to be the backbone of all materialist mindset that I've seen, but IMO it is an argument from ignorance and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the nature of spirit.


The argument is not that there is no evidence of a deity, and therefore no deity exists, it is that there is no evidence of a deity, and therefore it is highly unlikely that no deity exists. This is the same way that the idea that there is a completely undetectable unicorn behind me is highly unlikely.

The other for me would be that the idea of believing in a Creator is like that of believing in Santa or the Tooth Fairy or whatever little fantasy character you want to inject. Not only is it off topic but also demonstrates a real lack of integrity in the thought process. This for me is an immediate face palm.

Since there is no evidence for God or Santa, they are completely logical to compare to each other. Please demonstrate the fundamental difference in evidence that makes comparing God to Santa illogical.

I've engaged many atheists who for some reason think the idea of creation is stupid, as opposed to a random chance universe.... Lol that is ridiculous, that is backwards thinking if I've ever heard period. Creation is a far superior idea, not even comparable.

I am curious to see your evidence for such a lofty claim.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread was supposed to be some cheap humour - fun for everybody. But then I should have known better...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:11:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:08:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
This thread was supposed to be some cheap humour - fun for everybody. But then I should have known better...

How were we supposed to know that.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:12:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:08:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
This thread was supposed to be some cheap humour - fun for everybody. But then I should have known better...

The religious forum always ends up this way. That's just how it is.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:19:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. Existence just kinda sorta happened.
2. Any argument that the instigator runs from like a coward as soon as they are challenged to prove it and know they cannot, or see it pounded into the ground.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:28:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:19:29 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
1. Existence just kinda sorta happened.

Why is it so much more logical to believe that God just kinda sorta happened? Regardless of your viewpoint, there was an uncaused cause. Something came first without any cause, and we must consider which is more likely, a fully developed deity with infinite intelligence and power, or a singularity with some energy and matter.

2. Any argument that the instigator runs from like a coward as soon as they are challenged to prove it and know they cannot, or see it pounded into the ground.

An argument as a whole is not invalidated by someone making it poorly. For example, if an individual makes the argument that is completely sound, but does a bad job of making the argument, that does not make the conclusion of the argument invalid.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:36:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
While some of the arguments you mentioned may have weaknesses, I don't think the problems you raised against them are very good reasons to pooh pooh them, so I'm going to respond to those.

My list:
5. Personal Experience
You saw/experienced something? Cool story. How do you differentiate between something that requires a God, and something that just happens inside your head?

This response commits the quod nimis probat, nihil probat fallacy. If a personal experience can be dismissed on the basis that it might've just happened in one's head, then any experience is subject to the same dismissal on the same basis. That includes sensory perceptions. If I'm alone, and I see Big Foot, it's possible I hallucinated. If I had a clear and distinct memory of making out with Nora Jones, it's possible my brain just manufactured the memory. But the mere possibility that some experience only happened in my head without it corresponding to anything real outside my head is no reason to doubt my own experiences.

In my view, personal experiences are weak arguments for God because one cannot show their personal experience to anybody else. But as far as justifying one's own belief, I think personal experience can be adequate. If there's no reason for me to think I'm susceptible to hallucinations or manufactured memories, and if I have no record of seeing things that aren't really there, and if I have what seems to me to be a clear experience of God revealing himself to me in some way, then I'm warranted in thinking God exists whether I can show that to somebody else or not.

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with evolution. Besides that, intelligent design addresses more than the origin of species; it also addresses the origin of life.

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

This is just factually incorrect. N.T. Wright is obviously not ignorant of studies of history, textual criticism, or Biblical scholarship. Neither is Mike Licona. And neither of these people make arguments to the effect of "The New Testament says Jesus rose from the dead, so it must be true."

2. Modal Ontological Argument
When 95+% of people who run this argument doesn't even understand basic subjunctive possibilities, basic modal logic, and doesn't even understand what the concept of a necessary being entails - this argument just becomes one big fat equivocation which reeks even to those unfamiliar with the logical system behind it.

The MOA and its modal cousins, including modal arguments for atheism I dint think has ever oersuaded any atheist or theist, ever. It's an exceptional waste of time too when virtually nobody is going to understand it let alone be convinced by it

Even if it were true that 95% of the people who use modal ontological arguments don't understand modal logic, etc., it wouldn't follow that the argument is unsound. This is an ad hominem argument at it's finest. You're literally arguing that because of some defect on the part of people making this argument that there's therefore something wrong with the argument.

1. Moral Argument
An argument from ignorance, combined with a premise which 99% of atheists are going to be apathetic towards (and one I outright reject from nihilism) - Good luck ever persuading any atheist with this.

There are two premises in the typical formulation of the moral argument--one that says objective morality exists and one that says objective morality can only exist if God exists. Neither of these premises are treated with apathy by 99% of atheists. There are atheists who accept the first premise and reject the second, and atheists who reject the first premise but accept the first. I did a poll on that a while back:

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

A person who believes both premises and manages to think about them at the same time will be forced into theism on pain of irrationality.

Now, here are some of the weakest arguments I've heard for theism:

1. The transcendental argument from logic: This argument claims that since arguing, reasoning, and thinking depend on logic, and since logic depends on God, it's irrational for anybody to argue against the existence of God or even to deny God's existence since they are assuming the validity of logic in the process.

2. The argument from imagination: This argument claims that it is impossible for anybody imagine anything that isn't at least a composite of what is already known to exist. For example, a unicorn is a composite of horse and a horn, both of which exist. But God, if he exists, is utterly unique; therefore, God exists.

3. Because he lives in my heart: This argument claims that God exists on the basis that one has an emotional attachment to God or that God has saved them or that they feel a connection to God when they pray, etc.

4. Argument from providence: This argument claims that because of some unlikely but non-miraculous event occurred in history, that God must exists. Events include the aggressive spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the formation of Israel the 20th century.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:37:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:28:42 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:19:29 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
1. Existence just kinda sorta happened.

Why is it so much more logical to believe that God just kinda sorta happened? Regardless of your viewpoint, there was an uncaused cause. Something came first without any cause, and we must consider which is more likely, a fully developed deity with infinite intelligence and power, or a singularity with some energy and matter.

I don't believe God just kinda sorta happened?
Where did the energy and matter come from?

2. Any argument that the instigator runs from like a coward as soon as they are challenged to prove it and know they cannot, or see it pounded into the ground.

An argument as a whole is not invalidated by someone making it poorly. For example, if an individual makes the argument that is completely sound, but does a bad job of making the argument, that does not make the conclusion of the argument invalid.

It is if no one else can validate it.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:42:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:37:38 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:28:42 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:19:29 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
1. Existence just kinda sorta happened.

Why is it so much more logical to believe that God just kinda sorta happened? Regardless of your viewpoint, there was an uncaused cause. Something came first without any cause, and we must consider which is more likely, a fully developed deity with infinite intelligence and power, or a singularity with some energy and matter.

I don't believe God just kinda sorta happened?

Then what is your uncaused cause?

Where did the energy and matter come from?

With our current understanding of the way the universe works, I really don't know. The point that I was trying to make was that regardless of belief, there was an uncaused cause that cannot yet be explained, be it the energy and matter, or God.


2. Any argument that the instigator runs from like a coward as soon as they are challenged to prove it and know they cannot, or see it pounded into the ground.

An argument as a whole is not invalidated by someone making it poorly. For example, if an individual makes the argument that is completely sound, but does a bad job of making the argument, that does not make the conclusion of the argument invalid.

It is if no one else can validate it.

That is correct, but in your original point, it was implied that simply because the argument was made poorly argued, it is therefore false.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:52:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:42:52 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:37:38 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:28:42 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:19:29 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
1. Existence just kinda sorta happened.

Why is it so much more logical to believe that God just kinda sorta happened? Regardless of your viewpoint, there was an uncaused cause. Something came first without any cause, and we must consider which is more likely, a fully developed deity with infinite intelligence and power, or a singularity with some energy and matter.

I don't believe God just kinda sorta happened?

Then what is your uncaused cause?

Why does there have to be a cause?

Where did the energy and matter come from?

With our current understanding of the way the universe works, I really don't know. The point that I was trying to make was that regardless of belief, there was an uncaused cause that cannot yet be explained, be it the energy and matter, or God.

I don't believe existence has a cause, nor do I believe God "created" anything.

2. Any argument that the instigator runs from like a coward as soon as they are challenged to prove it and know they cannot, or see it pounded into the ground.

An argument as a whole is not invalidated by someone making it poorly. For example, if an individual makes the argument that is completely sound, but does a bad job of making the argument, that does not make the conclusion of the argument invalid.

It is if no one else can validate it.

That is correct, but in your original point, it was implied that simply because the argument was made poorly argued, it is therefore false.

I don't entirely agree, but I will admit that it was poorly worded.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:54:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:36:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
While some of the arguments you mentioned may have weaknesses, I don't think the problems you raised against them are very good reasons to pooh pooh them, so I'm going to respond to those.

It's not meant to be a debunking/refutation/argument thread. "More of a throw poop at a wall and laugh thread".

My list:
5. Personal Experience
You saw/experienced something? Cool story. How do you differentiate between something that requires a God, and something that just happens inside your head?

This response commits the quod nimis probat, nihil probat fallacy. If a personal experience can be dismissed on the basis that it might've just happened in one's head, then any experience is subject to the same dismissal on the same basis. That includes sensory perceptions. If I'm alone, and I see Big Foot, it's possible I hallucinated. If I had a clear and distinct memory of making out with Nora Jones, it's possible my brain just manufactured the memory. But the mere possibility that some experience only happened in my head without it corresponding to anything real outside my head is no reason to doubt my own experiences.

I would argue that:
1. We do doubt our sensory perceptions.
2. The fact it doesn't correspond to anything outside one's head is reason enough on its own to seriously doubt it for any external claims (external from cogito ergo sum).

In my view, personal experiences are weak arguments for God because one cannot show their personal experience to anybody else. But as far as justifying one's own belief, I think personal experience can be adequate. If there's no reason for me to think I'm susceptible to hallucinations or manufactured memories, and if I have no record of seeing things that aren't really there, and if I have what seems to me to be a clear experience of God revealing himself to me in some way, then I'm warranted in thinking God exists whether I can show that to somebody else or not.

I would apply point #2 to this as well.

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with evolution. Besides that, intelligent design addresses more than the origin of species; it also addresses the origin of life.

You are conflating the concept of intelligent design with the argument for the existence of God from intelligent design - which is relatively well-characterised and in virtually every form runs face-first into evolution.

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

This is just factually incorrect. N.T. Wright is obviously not ignorant of studies of history, textual criticism, or Biblical scholarship. Neither is Mike Licona. And neither of these people make arguments to the effect of "The New Testament says Jesus rose from the dead, so it must be true."

They run the argument from Jesus' resurrection for the existance of God?

2. Modal Ontological Argument
When 95+% of people who run this argument doesn't even understand basic subjunctive possibilities, basic modal logic, and doesn't even understand what the concept of a necessary being entails - this argument just becomes one big fat equivocation which reeks even to those unfamiliar with the logical system behind it.

The MOA and its modal cousins, including modal arguments for atheism I dint think has ever oersuaded any atheist or theist, ever. It's an exceptional waste of time too when virtually nobody is going to understand it let alone be convinced by it

Even if it were true that 95% of the people who use modal ontological arguments don't understand modal logic, etc., it wouldn't follow that the argument is unsound. This is an ad hominem argument at it's finest. You're literally arguing that because of some defect on the part of people making this argument that there's therefore something wrong with the argument.

The only point I made against the arguments soundness here is bonded and underlined. The rest was commentary.

1. Moral Argument
An argument from ignorance, combined with a premise which 99% of atheists are going to be apathetic towards (and one I outright reject from nihilism) - Good luck ever persuading any atheist with this.

There are two premises in the typical formulation of the moral argument--one that says objective morality exists and one that says objective morality can only exist if God exists. Neither of these premises are treated with apathy by 99% of atheists. There are atheists who accept the first premise and reject the second, and atheists who reject the first premise but accept the first. I did a poll on that a while back:

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

It seems I am factually wrong here.

A person who believes both premises and manages to think about them at the same time will be forced into theism on pain of irrationality.p
Yes. If the concepts are the same and both oremises are accepted. then the argument is trivially correct.

Now, here are some of the weakest arguments I've heard for theism:

1. The transcendental argument from logic: This argument claims that since arguing, reasoning, and thinking depend on logic, and since logic depends on God, it's irrational for anybody to argue against the existence of God or even to deny God's existence since they are assuming the validity of logic in the process.

2. The argument from imagination: This argument claims that it is impossible for anybody imagine anything that isn't at least a composite of what is already known to exist. For example, a unicorn is a composite of horse and a horn, both of which exist. But God, if he exists, is utterly unique; therefore, God exists.

3. Because he lives in my heart: This argument claims that God exists on the basis that one has an emotional attachment to God or that God has saved them or that they feel a connection to God when they pray, etc.

4. Argument from providence: This argument claims that because of some unlikely but non-miraculous event occurred in history, that God must exists. Events include the aggressive spread of Christianity throughout Europe and the formation of Israel the 20th century.
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 6:58:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:52:36 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:42:52 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:37:38 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:28:42 PM, joetheripper117 wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:19:29 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
1. Existence just kinda sorta happened.

Why is it so much more logical to believe that God just kinda sorta happened? Regardless of your viewpoint, there was an uncaused cause. Something came first without any cause, and we must consider which is more likely, a fully developed deity with infinite intelligence and power, or a singularity with some energy and matter.

I don't believe God just kinda sorta happened?

Then what is your uncaused cause?

Why does there have to be a cause?

I never said there has to be, I just said that in every belief system, something came form nothing. I was asking what you believed this thing to be.

Where did the energy and matter come from?

With our current understanding of the way the universe works, I really don't know. The point that I was trying to make was that regardless of belief, there was an uncaused cause that cannot yet be explained, be it the energy and matter, or God.

I don't believe existence has a cause, nor do I believe God "created" anything.

Just out of curiosity, what do you believe? I must have had a misconception, as you said that "Existence just kinda sorta happened." is one of the least convincing arguments, so I assumed you were a theist. If you are not, I apologize for the misconception.

2. Any argument that the instigator runs from like a coward as soon as they are challenged to prove it and know they cannot, or see it pounded into the ground.

An argument as a whole is not invalidated by someone making it poorly. For example, if an individual makes the argument that is completely sound, but does a bad job of making the argument, that does not make the conclusion of the argument invalid.

It is if no one else can validate it.

That is correct, but in your original point, it was implied that simply because the argument was made poorly argued, it is therefore false.

I don't entirely agree, but I will admit that it was poorly worded.

Alright, I appreciate your acknowledgement.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 7:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 6:54:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:36:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
While some of the arguments you mentioned may have weaknesses, I don't think the problems you raised against them are very good reasons to pooh pooh them, so I'm going to respond to those.

It's not meant to be a debunking/refutation/argument thread. "More of a throw poop at a wall and laugh thread".

Oh my bad. When you said, "Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion," I interpreted you to be giving reasons for why you think these are bad arguments for God.

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with evolution. Besides that, intelligent design addresses more than the origin of species; it also addresses the origin of life.

You are conflating the concept of intelligent design with the argument for the existence of God from intelligent design - which is relatively well-characterised and in virtually every form runs face-first into evolution.

Well, when you said, "Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion," then listed "intelligent design," I thought you meant "the argument for the existence of God from intelligent design." My bad.

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

This is just factually incorrect. N.T. Wright is obviously not ignorant of studies of history, textual criticism, or Biblical scholarship. Neither is Mike Licona. And neither of these people make arguments to the effect of "The New Testament says Jesus rose from the dead, so it must be true."

They run the argument from Jesus' resurrection for the existance of God?

No, I stand corrected. But now I'm confused about your response to intelligent design above. Are we talking about arguments for God or not?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 7:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/9/2015 7:00:49 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:54:37 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/9/2015 6:36:36 PM, philochristos wrote:
While some of the arguments you mentioned may have weaknesses, I don't think the problems you raised against them are very good reasons to pooh pooh them, so I'm going to respond to those.

It's not meant to be a debunking/refutation/argument thread. "More of a throw poop at a wall and laugh thread".

Oh my bad. When you said, "Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion," I interpreted you to be giving reasons for why you think these are bad arguments for God.

I was hoping that the sarcastic and outright obtuse nature would make it obvious that my post wasn't meant to be of a strictly intellectual nature. But Poe's Law...

4. Intelligent Design
An argument which blatantly ignores and runs against evolution which is already known to be true.... Good luck. Ironically it is actually religious scientists that do the best job in dispelling this absurd argument & position in my opinion. It was already a bad argument hundreds of years ago, it's hopeless since evolution was discovered.

Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with evolution. Besides that, intelligent design addresses more than the origin of species; it also addresses the origin of life.

You are conflating the concept of intelligent design with the argument for the existence of God from intelligent design - which is relatively well-characterised and in virtually every form runs face-first into evolution.

Well, when you said, "Theists and atheists are welcome to submit the worst arguments they have come across for the existence of God or for a specific religion," then listed "intelligent design," I thought you meant "the argument for the existence of God from intelligent design." My bad.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic there. Poe's Law #2?

3. Jesus's Resurrection
You seriously need to rethink your epistemological stance if you believe the stories of the New Testament fulfil anything more than the flimsiest of standards of evidence. To make this argument is to be grossly ignorant of studies of History, textual criticism and biblical scholarship.

This is just factually incorrect. N.T. Wright is obviously not ignorant of studies of history, textual criticism, or Biblical scholarship. Neither is Mike Licona. And neither of these people make arguments to the effect of "The New Testament says Jesus rose from the dead, so it must be true."

They run the argument from Jesus' resurrection for the existance of God?

No, I stand corrected. But now I'm confused about your response to intelligent design above. Are we talking about arguments for God or not?

I give up on this thread. Let's debate sometime - preferably something involving meteorites and knife-making.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry you abandoned the thread, Envisage. Here are my five:

5. I'm just the messenger and this message is for you
No, if it's always the same message, you're a salesman, and you have no idea who needs what.

4. You haven't heard all about my faith yet
First show me you can do something worthwhile that someone without your faith can't also do.

3. You can't possibly know how the universe works
But we know a lot about how people kid themselves and put it over one another, don't we? It's not hard to catch the religious claiming authorities based on expertise they don't have.

2. Without God, goodness is impossible
Because you've asserted a false equivalence between theology and virtue; or because people have to be bribed and threatened into compassion?

1. Without faith life can have no purpose, morality or meaning
Because you've lived one narrow, sanctimonious little life, and know all about it?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 9:20:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Just out of curiosity, what do you believe? I must have had a misconception, as you said that "Existence just kinda sorta happened." is one of the least convincing arguments, so I assumed you were a theist. If you are not, I apologize for the misconception.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

I am a theist, and call myself a Christian. Most other Christians insist that I am not a Christian.

My beliefs are based mostly on logic supported by opinion. Science does support me, save in a few generalities. I believe all that is, always has been, including life. I don't believe God creates things, I believe He organizes that which has always existed. Just as we all only have one biological father, but there are many fathers, I believe that we only have one God the Father, though there are many Gods. Transitions can occur in infinity. I believe we are simply early (child-like) transitions of that which is called God.

I realize that sounds like fringe thinking, but it makes more sense to me than an old man popping out of nothing, then making everything else pop out of nothing just for giggles. Or anything popping out of nothing for no apparent reason for that matter.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 9:22:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I give up on this thread. Let's debate sometime - preferably something involving meteorites and knife-making.

I would anxiously read that debate.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Patrykh
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2015 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When a theist tells me that Hitler was an atheist to prove atheism. Not only it's a lie it's also irrelevant and it doesn't help your God.