Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are the worst (but serious) arguments...

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:35:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

I always liked Ray Comfort's argument (also used by Hovind):

When you see a painting, you know that there is a paintah.
When you see a building, you know there is a buildah.
So, when you see Creation, you must know there is a Creator.
(spelling modified to reflect Ray's speech)

This argument from analogy commits two major logical fallacies:

First, the obvious one is that by referring to the universe as "Creation", it already assumes that it was created (hence, a creator exists), so it commits the Begging the Question fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...). The argument utterly loses its appeal if the last statement is corrected: "when you see the universe, you must know there is a Creator".

Second, regarding [the Christian] God's act of creation, this would be a true act of creation (ex nihilo), whereas "creation" in terms of a painting or building entails rearrangement of preexisting energy and matter. Thus, this argument also commits the Equivocation logical fallacy (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...).
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:40:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

Pascal's wager:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

The wager assumes only one god, and overlooks the negative consequences promised to non believers by other religions. So, you would need to believe in multiple gods to avoid all these potential consequences. Additionally, it suggest beliefs can be chosen or insincerely pretended. Beliefs are formed, not chosen, and pretending belief seems unlikely to fool an omniscient being.
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
JimDavis
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:41:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

For me, it has to be pascal's wager, where a believer typically tells a nonbeliever "if you're wrong, you'll go to hell, but if I'm wrong nothing bad happens after I die"

One problem is, it doesn't consider "what if you're wrong about WHICH god is correct?" Also, it's irrelevant, because belief is not a simple choice. Saying you believe in God just in case he's real isn't a genuine belief and probably wouldn't satisfy God.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:54:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:40:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Pascal's wager:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

The wager assumes only one god, and overlooks the negative consequences promised to non believers by other religions. So, you would need to believe in multiple gods to avoid all these potential consequences. Additionally, it suggest beliefs can be chosen or insincerely pretended. Beliefs are formed, not chosen, and pretending belief seems unlikely to fool an omniscient being.

Not a lot of fans of his, here. Poor Pascal...

I thought of that one too, but that's not really an argument for the existence of God, per se. Rather, it's an argument for why one should just have believe in God. It even acknowledges the possibility of god not existing in the very first line: "If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing...".
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:58:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
"Nuttin done it"
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 7:58:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:54:06 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:40:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:

Pascal's wager:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

The wager assumes only one god, and overlooks the negative consequences promised to non believers by other religions. So, you would need to believe in multiple gods to avoid all these potential consequences. Additionally, it suggest beliefs can be chosen or insincerely pretended. Beliefs are formed, not chosen, and pretending belief seems unlikely to fool an omniscient being.

Not a lot of fans of his, here. Poor Pascal...

I thought of that one too, but that's not really an argument for the existence of God, per se. Rather, it's an argument for why one should just have believe in God. It even acknowledges the possibility of god not existing in the very first line: "If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing...".

I suppose you may be technically correct, but I see arguments for the existence of god to be arguments for belief as well.
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
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:02:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The Reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the..."

If we claim this is the only reality everything has a cause which causes a paradox. (Infinite causes of the cause of the cause of the cause ...).

That is why we need something without a cause. The only way this is possible is if there is another reality beyond ours with different "laws of how things work" there. This is why God is needed to fulfill the conundrum of infinite causality. Otherwise you are in the intellectual vacuum of the reason for the reason for the reason...infinitely...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:07:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:02:50 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
The Reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the reason for the..."

If we claim this is the only reality everything has a cause which causes a paradox. (Infinite causes of the cause of the cause of the cause ...).

That is why we need something without a cause. The only way this is possible is if there is another reality beyond ours with different "laws of how things work" there. This is why God is needed to fulfill the conundrum of infinite causality. Otherwise you are in the intellectual vacuum of the reason for the reason for the reason...infinitely...

Or, if the universe doesn't have a cause, that also works.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:14:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

So it's a bad argument on thread A. It's too good of an argument on thread B.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:15:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:14:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

So it's a bad argument on thread A. It's too good of an argument on thread B.

No, it is a bad argument on both thread A and B.
It is just that on this thread, the bad arguments need to also be serious ones, which your isn't. If you actually read what I said, you would have seen that. But you seem to be to stupid to be able to actually comprehend what is actually said, so keep living in your delusion.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:16:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

Here's a bad argument against God. Comparing flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, and unicorns to a historical figure. Ta da! Put that in the book.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:17:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:15:51 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:14:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

So it's a bad argument on thread A. It's too good of an argument on thread B.

No, it is a bad argument on both thread A and B.
It is just that on this thread, the bad arguments need to also be serious ones, which your isn't. If you actually read what I said, you would have seen that. But you seem to be to stupid to be able to actually comprehend what is actually said, so keep living in your delusion.

"*Too stupid"
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:18:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:16:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

Here's a bad argument against God. Comparing flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, and unicorns to a historical figure. Ta da! Put that in the book.

What part of bad but serious are you unable to comprehend?
Honestly, tell me what part of it is so hard to understand?

Now, stop posting in my thread you idiot.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:20:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:18:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

Here's a bad argument against God. Comparing flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, and unicorns to a historical figure. Ta da! Put that in the book.

What part of bad but serious are you unable to comprehend?
Honestly, tell me what part of it is so hard to understand?

Now, stop posting in my thread you idiot.

Afhjjthbghh
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:21:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. ...

I hear you, but I mostly listen to arguments that are against my current position. I would have to say that I've seen the Problem of Evil misused; it doesn't argue against the existence of god, just the existence of a perfectly benevolent god. I think it is ultimately weak and based on personal moral biases, anyway.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:23:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

Kalam Cosmological argument. It first assumes all things begin to exist, and then it assumes that if it began to exist only an intelligent creator could be the reason behind it. I'm clueless as to how these assumptions seem to go unchecked or why they exist to start with.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:30:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
For God:
-Ontological argument
- Pascal's Wager, I'm guilty of using this I'll admit.

Against God:
-Problem of Evil
-Hitchen's "razor"
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:39:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

Not going to lie, thought this would just be more atheist hate, thank you for being intelligent.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 8:42:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 7:41:55 PM, JimDavis wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

For me, it has to be pascal's wager, where a believer typically tells a nonbeliever "if you're wrong, you'll go to hell, but if I'm wrong nothing bad happens after I die"

One problem is, it doesn't consider "what if you're wrong about WHICH god is correct?" Also, it's irrelevant, because belief is not a simple choice. Saying you believe in God just in case he's real isn't a genuine belief and probably wouldn't satisfy God.

You can't really help what you believe either, so you (Not you, just in the general sense) will end up going to hell with the majority of the worlds population for reasons you cant control because reasons apparently.
Meh!
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 9:41:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:18:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:16:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:11:09 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:07:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:05:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

1) I already addressed this without you responding, and I'm sure you are only posting here because of our discussion elsewhere.
The universe can be "eternal" with a finite amount of time if it is tenseless.
2) Look at the title of this thread you dunce. The version of the argument I presented is bad on purpose.

If my answer is worthy of being called a dunce, and my argument is here on a thread you labeled bad/worst arhuments, then what are you complaining about?

Because this isn't a thread for discussing the arguments, just presenting them.
Furthermore, it isn't a thread for creating strawmans to try and "one up" the position you disagree with, just for presenting bad (BUT SERIOUS) arguments.
You have shown everyone that you are unable to actually have intelligent discussion and that you know next to nothing about history, science, or philosophy. It means that you are probably not qualified enough (and your actions haven't shown any different) to really be able to determine what is a bad but serious argument.
You are able to demonstrate what arguments are bad by strawmanning serious ones or making up arguments that no one uses, but that makes it so they aren't serious arguments.

Here's a bad argument against God. Comparing flying spaghetti monsters, fairies, and unicorns to a historical figure. Ta da! Put that in the book.

What part of bad but serious are you unable to comprehend?
Honestly, tell me what part of it is so hard to understand?

Now, stop posting in my thread you idiot.

It is people like you that take the fun out of these forums. I never can understand why people can show such disrespect like that.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 10:02:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:01:41 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:55:21 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I was hoping for more arguments AGAINST then what is, so far, none, to include in my book for a small section on how NOT to debate the existence of God. Here is one that I have right now:

If the universe needs an explanation for its existence that is god, then god needs an explanation for its existence.
If God can be eternal, then the universe can be eternal as well.

If the universe is eternal you create an infinity-causality-paradox because the universe is in this reality. God is not caused which is not a paradox because He is not from our reality.

Besides, if you say the universe is eternal, you must deny the evidence for a big bang, thus you must toss all cosmological evidence as must all be false.

Not true. All the evidence for the Big Bang ALSO could be seen as evidence of a toroidal universe(which can be eternal).
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 11:21:43 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 8:39:56 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 2/5/2016 7:14:42 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What arguments have you found that are the worst (yet are serious arguments) for/against the existence of a god? What makes them so horrible?

Not going to lie, thought this would just be more atheist hate, thank you for being intelligent.

My "atheist hate" only comes out when people show that:
1) They are not capable of having intellectual discourse
2) Are unwilling to listen to others in discussion
3) Try and pretend they know more than they do.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2016 11:23:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/5/2016 9:41:48 PM, Jerry947 wrote:
It is people like you that take the fun out of these forums. I never can understand why people can show such disrespect like that.

1) Respect and disrespect are relative terms in which have no objective value/meaning.
2) This forum isn't about "fun", it is about discussion. When someone shows they are unwilling and unable to have intellectual discourse with another of differing views, then insult is all they deserve.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO