Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments for God and logical fallacies

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:00:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of the major arguments have versions propounded by some heavyweight philosophers that are logical-fallacy free. Whether or not they are sound or persuasive is a different question.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.



He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:05:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?

Yes, it is basically an appeal to magic-- forces beyond our knowledge and natural concepts. That is the very problem of this sort of debate: the theist has the supreme being on his side. One could claim special pleading, but Craig's retort is that God IS a very special exception.

On a side note, check out Sean Carroll's debate with Craig. Craig is an expert debater, but his cosmological arguments hit a wall with Carroll, who is a theoretical physicist.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:06:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd be a theist, but the modal ontological argument appears to be sound, using the S5 system of logic.
harrytruman
Posts: 812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:13:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
Unfortunately, not any more than the arguments against a god.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:18:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.

Abstract objects - Do you mean concepts dependent on the human mind - like Justice and logic? That would necessarily mean they did not always exist. Correct me if I have misunderstood.



He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:21:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:18:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.

Abstract objects - Do you mean concepts dependent on the human mind - like Justice and logic? That would necessarily mean they did not always exist. Correct me if I have misunderstood.


I wouldn't say logic is dependent on human minds. The law of excluded middle certainly existed before humans existed. Nothing could be A and ~A before humans came along. We just discovered and formalized it.

But by abstract objects I'm paradigmatically referring to things like numbers:

http://www.mit.edu...


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:25:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:06:09 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

I don't agree with it, otherwise I'd be a theist, but the modal ontological argument appears to be sound, using the S5 system of logic.

I don't understand modal logic and I'm ignorant of the "S5 system of logic" (never had much interest in philosophy until lately), so I'll have to give that one to you. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:31:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:13:49 AM, harrytruman wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
Unfortunately, not any more than the arguments against a god.

Deflection.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:08:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:21:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:18:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.

Abstract objects - Do you mean concepts dependent on the human mind - like Justice and logic? That would necessarily mean they did not always exist. Correct me if I have misunderstood.


I wouldn't say logic is dependent on human minds.

Why not? Are you assuming there are other rational minds in the universe?

The law of excluded middle certainly existed before humans existed. Nothing could be A and ~A before humans came along. We just discovered and formalized it.

This is a law of "thought", and is merely a description. Such a description cannot exist without a rational mind to observe it. It still appears God is the only item in the 'did not begin to exist' pile.

But by abstract objects I'm paradigmatically referring to things like numbers:

http://www.mit.edu...

Thank you. I'll check it out.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:09:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:05:57 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?

Yes, it is basically an appeal to magic-- forces beyond our knowledge and natural concepts. That is the very problem of this sort of debate: the theist has the supreme being on his side. One could claim special pleading, but Craig's retort is that God IS a very special exception.

On a side note, check out Sean Carroll's debate with Craig. Craig is an expert debater, but his cosmological arguments hit a wall with Carroll, who is a theoretical physicist.

I will check that out. Thanks.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:41:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:08:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:21:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:18:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.

Abstract objects - Do you mean concepts dependent on the human mind - like Justice and logic? That would necessarily mean they did not always exist. Correct me if I have misunderstood.


I wouldn't say logic is dependent on human minds.

Why not? Are you assuming there are other rational minds in the universe?


Sure, there could be aliens or God. But even barring that I wouldn't say it's dependent on human minds.

The law of excluded middle certainly existed before humans existed. Nothing could be A and ~A before humans came along. We just discovered and formalized it.

This is a law of "thought", and is merely a description. Such a description cannot exist without a rational mind to observe it. It still appears God is the only item in the 'did not begin to exist' pile.


Description of what? Are you saying, before humans, it was possible for a tree to both be a tree and not be a tree at the same time the same sense?

But by abstract objects I'm paradigmatically referring to things like numbers:

http://www.mit.edu...

Thank you. I'll check it out.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 4:47:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:41:47 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:08:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:21:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:18:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.

Abstract objects - Do you mean concepts dependent on the human mind - like Justice and logic? That would necessarily mean they did not always exist. Correct me if I have misunderstood.


I wouldn't say logic is dependent on human minds.

Why not? Are you assuming there are other rational minds in the universe?


Sure, there could be aliens or God. But even barring that I wouldn't say it's dependent on human minds.

The law of excluded middle certainly existed before humans existed. Nothing could be A and ~A before humans came along. We just discovered and formalized it.

This is a law of "thought", and is merely a description. Such a description cannot exist without a rational mind to observe it. It still appears God is the only item in the 'did not begin to exist' pile.


Description of what? Are you saying, before humans, it was possible for a tree to both be a tree and not be a tree at the same time the same sense?

No, of course not. I'm saying it was not possible for that observation to be made until humans (or a rational mind) existed.

But by abstract objects I'm paradigmatically referring to things like numbers:

http://www.mit.edu...

Thank you. I'll check it out.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:52:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

I think it commits the fallacy of ad hocness/bareassertions.............

Craigs metaphysics of what is possible and what is impossible is made up to suit purpose.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.


Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue. People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 10:54:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...

I find the ontological argument so void I'll pass on giving comment. As for Craig's version of the Cosmological argument, it states in its first premise:

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

Two observations:

1 ) The statement is of absolute all-encompassing nature. Where has it been proven that absolutely everything that has begun and begins to exist, the universe, the various possible universes, the Multiverse, all quantum phenomena, must have a cause?

2 ) The argument is supposedly an attempt to demonstrate the necessity of the existence of a God that has always existed and therefore dispensed with the need to have a cause for His existence. What about the universe? Can't the universe have always existed, a cyclic universe going through cycles of expansion, contraction, time reset before each new big bang? Can't the Multiverse be the cause of this particular Universe?

Craig suggested that past-eternal universe is not possible. He has recruited the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin in his defence. But one of the authors, Alan Guth, is said to have said:

" (...) the universe probably didn"t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal." [ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com... ]

Very recent theoretical models indeed postulate a beginningless Universe:
"No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning"
[ http://phys.org... ]
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:26:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
God exists. Its not an argument.
You are right.
It's not an argument, it is a claim made by men who fail to provide evidence to support their claim.
That means it can be rejected out of hand.
I'm glad you agree.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:38:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue.

Life in general would as life in general would be obsolete by inception: there indeed would be no point if God, spiritual realms and such thing as "omnipotence" exist. There is simply no need for life. No purpose.

People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?

Only if you consider deception on behalf of something that is so wise and benevolent to be "ingenious". I think a lie, no matter how clever, is... well, a lie. A misdirection. God really should have no reason to lie, correct?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:31:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:38:00 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue.


Life in general would as life in general would be obsolete by inception: there indeed would be no point if God, spiritual realms and such thing as "omnipotence" exist. There is simply no need for life. No purpose.
Wrong. Life's purpose is to experience what being without God, for the most part, is like in order to learn the wisdom necessary to respect what existing with God is like. You have to walk across broken glass barefoot to appreciate what walking through silky sand beaches feels like. Its called duality, and duality is a scientific fact of existence. Reality depends on it.
People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?

Only if you consider deception on behalf of something that is so wise and benevolent to be "ingenious". I think a lie, no matter how clever, is... well, a lie. A misdirection. God really should have no reason to lie, correct?
Deception is a non sequitur, you're assuming something that isn't true. And just because you don't know God exists doesn't mean God is deceiving you. And the real argument you're attempting to present is condemnation for not knowing God exists. Hate to burst your bubble, but condemnation is merely an obstacle to wisdom, not what you think other people say it is. The eternal damnation of the soul is about wisdom, not about an actual probability that it's going to happen to anybody just because they currently don't know God exists. Satan and the one he uses to deceive the whole world, which won't be a viable "soul of a person" sort of speak, are the only victims of eternal damnation. You don't need to believe me, it's immaterial to the truth. Believe what you want. In the long run nobody actually cares what you believe but you. Just like nobody cares if what I'm saying is the truth except God. I can live with that....hagd
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:45:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue.


Life in general would as life in general would be obsolete by inception: there indeed would be no point if God, spiritual realms and such thing as "omnipotence" exist. There is simply no need for life. No purpose.

Wrong. Life's purpose is to experience what being without God, for the most part, is like in order to learn the wisdom necessary to respect what existing with God is like.

If God is omnipresent, such is not possible, but I do like how you have tacked in a "for the most part" to make your claim portable. ;)

You have to walk across broken glass barefoot to appreciate what walking through silky sand beaches feels like. Its called duality, and duality is a scientific fact of existence. Reality depends on it.

And considering the Unreal/intangible/immaterial and omnipotence of God -duality is not a requirement-. To say it "must" be experienced infers that there is something regarding His creation and omnipotence that He is NOT able to create.

People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?

Only if you consider deception on behalf of something that is so wise and benevolent to be "ingenious". I think a lie, no matter how clever, is... well, a lie. A misdirection. God really should have no reason to lie, correct?
Deception is a non sequitur, you're assuming something that isn't true.
I have no need of being mysterious, veiled, mystic, intangible, immaterial, or "figured out" if I am not deceptive. Were I to truly want something of my creation, honesty dictates I provide them plain instruction, the type of which even Ikea was able to settle upon, but apparently God is not.

And just because you don't know God exists doesn't mean God is deceiving you. And the real argument you're attempting to present is condemnation for not knowing God exists.

No, that He should want something from His creation, and not be plain about it. People that are not clear in their communication of desires have either an ulterior motive, or a complication with communication of said desire. Since God is omnipotent, a problem is impossible.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:00:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue. People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?

Argument by assertion - logical fallacy.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:01:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:26:35 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
God exists. Its not an argument.
You are right.
It's not an argument, it is a claim made by men who fail to provide evidence to support their claim.
That means it can be rejected out of hand.
I'm glad you agree.
Prove you're an authority on validating the evidence.
Explain how evidence changes the beginning nature of a claim.
Explain how someone who possesses proof that you don't somehow validates the claim simply by informing you of something you lack.
Explain how everyone on this planet is capable of all knowing and possessing and/or understanding the same information.
The problem with your logic is it's based on ego, not argumentation or logic. Simply demanding evidence isn't an argument, it's a proclamation of ignorance by the asker.
You assume 3 things.
A) you think I need your validation, I don't.
B) you assume you're capable of validating the evidence if it were presented. You're not.
C) you assume I should want to prove to you something, I don't.
You haven't demonstrated you can understand or validate what Inpossess. Show me evidence that arterial blood splatter happens when someone's throat is cut while they're alive. You can show and tell me everything you want about what the evidence shows but if I'm not an expert in blood splatter patterns then I'm not the one you need to validate the evidence. You can attempt to show me why certain blood spots are from the artery and some aren't, but it takes studying the subject and demonstrating comprehension of it before its valid for me to then turn around and ask someone for evidence of their claim that a person had their throat cut and was put in a trunk while their heart was still beating. Your default response isn't a counter or relevant. It's posturing, nothing more.
This is where you say "why don't you try, oh because you can't".
Here ill tell you what you're thinking. Stock arguments. Stock responses.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:05:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:00:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue. People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?

Argument by assertion - logical fallacy.
Only if you can prove it is only an assertion...You can't. Simply claiming something is an assertion doesn't make it true, it only makes it true to you. Just because I possess something you don't doesn't therefore mean you have a counter. It simply means you lack something I don't.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:09:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:05:22 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:00:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 9:32:43 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.
God exists. Its not an argument. You simply are under the impression that knolwedge of God is an equal opportunist, it isn't. See, you have to think of wisdom on a grander scale. If everyone were in possession of the knowledge that God exists , the conversation would simply grind to a halt if you agree with the assertion from the other side of the issue. People who say believing God exists or saying God "did it" always argue that it results in a halt to further inquiry. Therefore thinking God doesn't exist continues the inquiry. Simply put, God is so wise that God established a method in which discussions about God would be an eternal part of reality, quite ingenious don't you think?

Argument by assertion - logical fallacy.
Only if you can prove it is only an assertion...You can't. Simply claiming something is an assertion doesn't make it true, it only makes it true to you. Just because I possess something you don't doesn't therefore mean you have a counter. It simply means you lack something I don't.

The burden of proof is on you.

It is you who are making the assertion, the positive claim, and it is therefore you who are under the obligation to provide evidence to support it. It is not up to others to prove your claims are mere assertions. They can indeed be thought of as assertions until you meet the requirement to provide evidence.

To claim that something is true simply because it has not been shown to be wrong is a fallacy known as appeal top ignorance.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:10:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 4:47:45 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:41:47 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 4:08:18 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:21:17 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:18:10 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:59:51 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/12/2015 2:48:07 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

What else besides God did not begin to exist? Isn't it clear that this premise was worded to make special rules for God?


Abstract objects. It's not clear at all. Again, there is no logical fallacy there.

Abstract objects - Do you mean concepts dependent on the human mind - like Justice and logic? That would necessarily mean they did not always exist. Correct me if I have misunderstood.


I wouldn't say logic is dependent on human minds.

Why not? Are you assuming there are other rational minds in the universe?


Sure, there could be aliens or God. But even barring that I wouldn't say it's dependent on human minds.

The law of excluded middle certainly existed before humans existed. Nothing could be A and ~A before humans came along. We just discovered and formalized it.

This is a law of "thought", and is merely a description. Such a description cannot exist without a rational mind to observe it. It still appears God is the only item in the 'did not begin to exist' pile.


Description of what? Are you saying, before humans, it was possible for a tree to both be a tree and not be a tree at the same time the same sense?

No, of course not. I'm saying it was not possible for that observation to be made until humans (or a rational mind) existed.


But that's my point. It's that the Law of the excluded middle existed before human minds. So it can't be dependent on them.

But by abstract objects I'm paradigmatically referring to things like numbers:

http://www.mit.edu...

Thank you. I'll check it out.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.

Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:52:07 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:26:22 AM, Fly wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

If you watch just about any debate on the issue with William Lane Craig, you will see that he almost always invokes the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I believe it is free of fallacy.

I think it commits the fallacy of ad hocness/bareassertions.............


I think your argument is a bare assertion. His principle has actually been in philosophy for like thousands of years.

Craigs metaphysics of what is possible and what is impossible is made up to suit purpose.


He also uses a philosophical argument which is logical. In summary, it states that if an all encompassing being is possible to exist, then it does exist-- because it is all encompassing-- and that being would be God. Phrased in the highly truncated manner I just did, it sounds as though it begs the question, but it is actually an argument with about 7 premises to it... and perhaps a few sub conclusions. It leaves one wondering if it is possible for an "all encompassing" being to exist.


Now I feel like I just gave people a glance at the answer key...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:13:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Are there any arguments for the existence of God which do not rely on a logical fallacy? Consider this a challenge.

Sure:

Proof that there is a God (Creator and Judge) is no different then proving that some person exists, that you are presently not in the presence of, though you may have heard of this person. If you go by a trusted witness, is the witness"s witness true or false? And a witness that is not trusted, is what was said true or false? Or dose one have to find out for himself whether the person exists or not, by experiencing the presence of that person? Then you would know. And by knowing you acknowledge that, that person exists.

If some one tells of something that they have experienced, do you trust the witness? If you do trust the witness, or what you"ve been told though you don"t trust the witness, then how can you know without experiencing the same for yourself?

I can"t prove someone else exists, nor can you. One must experience the presence of that person to know that person exists. In other words they prove that they are, by their presence. It"s the same with the Living God.