Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This is simpler than you guys think it is

AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Atheism is the neutral position, we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid, and with infinite potential gods if time is infinite being claimed to be true why waste our time on following any one of them?

Now to make it even simpler, if your god is real, prove it.
Whatever proof you show I will say EXACTLY what it is proof of. I do not make assumptions because I am dealing with the truth, and I am not being biased because I think all are equally wrong. I think a god might exist, but the odds of us guessing the right one is literally 1 divided by infinity.

So who wants to have a go? I know most people here are quite fervent. Also don't simply just agree with me atheists, if we don't want others circle-jerking [with their psychological defense mechanisms of assertion denial and psychological projection] why be a hypocrite about it right. And just because you are right doesn't mean you can resort to ad hominems, although it is true some arguments about the credibility of who you are speaking to would be good because lets say someone is crazy and arguing with them would be pc but entirely pointless. So some arguments get falsely equivocated with ad hominems, but in reality they are speaking truth, I wonder how to see the difference between the two.

One is like you are a moron, that's obviously an ad hominem. But a person saying your statement is psychologically projecting or is an assertion psychological defense mechanism so I shouldn't really be taking you seriously until you chillax or stop ignoring my counter-evidence and actually logically reply to it instead of ignoring it like a self-righteous elitist, its rather specific it might actually be true and is far easier to verify its accuracy of than a statement like 'yur stewped'. But a problem arises that that too can be used ad infinitum so its best to avoid it usually, maybe ignoring people who dismiss arguments is the best course of action, granted dismissing of arguments can also be done ad infinitum (ergo is super stupid).

So hence forth any logical discussion dismissed to not directly refute an argument is considered an ad hominem and a denial psychological defense mechanism.

Any unsupported argument is considered an assertion psychological defense mechanism.

Any random insult or description that cannot be adequately guessed from the posts previous to it is a psychological projection or self-elevation route of denial, elitism. Elitism psychologically is the same as racism, just replace color with something else they disapprove of. You shouldn't be taken seriously.

So now as a reminder to the actual topic, may the most evident religion win. I will say what evidence you have handed me, and nothing more (if I remember, if I get coaxed into 'debating' remind me to stop and just say the evidence) and if you present no evidence you will be told repeatedly that you have not presented evidence.

I will not say what types of evidences are allowed as that is to be said in my future posts, and we will learn more if we accept everything(grains of salt).

You may begin.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:42:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.

Well you are just being off-topic then. You didn't give me reason to suppose anything as of yet, only you asserting its true, when I am approaching the topic from a skeptical beginner view point. You are saying this is all true, but am I just to assume everyone is right? I need a method to differentiate thus cannot agree with you yet.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:46:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:42:09 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.

Well you are just being off-topic then. You didn't give me reason to suppose anything as of yet, only you asserting its true, when I am approaching the topic from a skeptical beginner view point. You are saying this is all true, but am I just to assume everyone is right? I need a method to differentiate thus cannot agree with you yet.

Again, I'm fully aware that I haven't provided an argument for God's existence. I don't do that in forum posts -- only debates. My point in this thread is to argue with a claim you've made, namely, that all gods are equally likely to exist. That thousands of gods have been invented by man has no bearing on the one God of classical theism; trying to sweep them together to make theism easier to attack is in poor taste.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:48:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:46:17 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:42:09 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.

Well you are just being off-topic then. You didn't give me reason to suppose anything as of yet, only you asserting its true, when I am approaching the topic from a skeptical beginner view point. You are saying this is all true, but am I just to assume everyone is right? I need a method to differentiate thus cannot agree with you yet.

Again, I'm fully aware that I haven't provided an argument for God's existence. I don't do that in forum posts -- only debates. My point in this thread is to argue with a claim you've made, namely, that all gods are equally likely to exist. That thousands of gods have been invented by man has no bearing on the one God of classical theism; trying to sweep them together to make theism easier to attack is in poor taste.

I made no claims, just observations based on the potential infinite view of the universe. Until we know for certain the size of the universe it will be a possibility.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:51:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:48:55 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:46:17 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:42:09 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.

Well you are just being off-topic then. You didn't give me reason to suppose anything as of yet, only you asserting its true, when I am approaching the topic from a skeptical beginner view point. You are saying this is all true, but am I just to assume everyone is right? I need a method to differentiate thus cannot agree with you yet.

Again, I'm fully aware that I haven't provided an argument for God's existence. I don't do that in forum posts -- only debates. My point in this thread is to argue with a claim you've made, namely, that all gods are equally likely to exist. That thousands of gods have been invented by man has no bearing on the one God of classical theism; trying to sweep them together to make theism easier to attack is in poor taste.

I made no claims, just observations based on the potential infinite view of the universe. Until we know for certain the size of the universe it will be a possibility.

lmao what does the size of the universe have to do with anything?
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:12:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

And you've just perfectly elucidated your special pleading, well done. You can run off and play with the other little kiddies now.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:14:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:12:58 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

And you've just perfectly elucidated your special pleading, well done. You can run off and play with the other little kiddies now.

Christ, there are even atheist philosophers who would roll their eyes at this sort of non-argument.
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:22:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:14:35 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:12:58 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

And you've just perfectly elucidated your special pleading, well done. You can run off and play with the other little kiddies now.

Christ, there are even atheist philosophers who would roll their eyes at this sort of non-argument.

It seems to me you're arguing from authority, which is a fallacy on its own, and you're also refusing to substantiate the key arguments that supposedly erect the Christian God above the graveyard of tribal Gods.

The Catholic Church can also boast about two millennia of highly sophisticated and contrived argumentation for their increasingly cryptic theology. Guess what? That says absolutely nothing about the quality of the argumentation, except, at best, that it is internally consistent. Yet what we're examining here is agreement with reality.

So I'd think it's best for you to show the goods and recount those marvellous invincible arguments with which the Christian God is shown to be distinct from the countless gods which have fallen into obscurity.

Your move.
labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:24:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
Atheism is the neutral position...

You may begin.

As far as I have considered it, I think that God exists. But not in a form we think (not an eternal living thing in form of a human). I believe this simply because believing the galaxies to be 'popped out of nowhere' is actually more illogical than saying that 'God made it happen'.

But the bigger question is: why does it matter if God exists or not? Do some lose meaning in their life if it doesn't?

To me believing in God brings more than not to. And I don't mean thinking that God is some kind of helicopter parent, fixing everything in my life and what not, if I just pray hard/believe hard enough. No... I mean that it makes me more humble for life when I see it as a gift and not as set of lucky random occurrence.

PS. Many means nature with the word 'God'. It has made everything we see, gives life and takes life when it pleases. So God for humans is the nature, as we can't live on any other 'kingdom' ;) But then it would leave another question, who created the earth?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:22:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:14:35 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:12:58 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

And you've just perfectly elucidated your special pleading, well done. You can run off and play with the other little kiddies now.

Christ, there are even atheist philosophers who would roll their eyes at this sort of non-argument.

It seems to me you're arguing from authority, which is a fallacy on its own, and you're also refusing to substantiate the key arguments that supposedly erect the Christian God above the graveyard of tribal Gods.

The appeal to authority is a fallacy in reasoning if I'm trying to deductively prove some conclusion based only on the authority of someone who argues for it. Sometimes, it makes for a solid indirect argument, but I'm not doing even that.

I'm arguing that the God of the philosophers (the nature of which is nearly identical to the God of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic revelation) is fundamentally and irreducibly distinct in substance and definition from tribal gods. It is so because the God of the philosophers is not a being among other beings, like Zeus, Ra, etc. The God of the philosophers, of Plato, Aristotle, Averroes, etc., is a Being who is considered the ultimate principle of all existence, by those philosophers; this is a God who is considered by those philosophers to be provable by deductive reasoning, whereas Ra, mountain gods, and the like could only be validated by empirical observation; they could not even in theory be the principle of all existence.

The Catholic Church can also boast about two millennia of highly sophisticated and contrived argumentation for their increasingly cryptic theology. Guess what? That says absolutely nothing about the quality of the argumentation, except, at best, that it is internally consistent. Yet what we're examining here is agreement with reality.

Again, I'm arguing that the classical theistic God cannot be swept into the same epistemic camp as tribal gods. It's simply not the same type of claim. One is in the same camp as a geometric proof, based on deductive reasoning, and can be debated therein; the other is in the same camp as an undiscovered planet, based on empirical observation, and can be debated therein. I'm trying to draw a fundamental distinction here.

So I'd think it's best for you to show the goods and recount those marvellous invincible arguments with which the Christian God is shown to be distinct from the countless gods which have fallen into obscurity.

Your move.

haha, I do not debate God's existence in forum posts, only in formalized debates. I've learned to do that from being on this site for four years.
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 4:34:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:24:32 PM, labambah wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
Atheism is the neutral position...

You may begin.

As far as I have considered it, I think that God exists. But not in a form we think (not an eternal living thing in form of a human). I believe this simply because believing the galaxies to be 'popped out of nowhere' is actually more illogical than saying that 'God made it happen'.
The puddle woke up and realised that the hole it occupied fitted it so well that the only answer was that the hole was designed specifically for it.
But the bigger question is: why does it matter if God exists or not? Do some lose meaning in their life if it doesn't?
What is this god that allegedly exists.
To me believing in God brings more than not to. And I don't mean thinking that God is some kind of helicopter parent, fixing everything in my life and what not, if I just pray hard/believe hard enough. No... I mean that it makes me more humble for life when I see it as a gift and not as set of lucky random occurrence.
So it's your hubris that is flattered by your need for gods. Whatever.
PS. Many means nature with the word 'God'. It has made everything we see, gives life and takes life when it pleases. So God for humans is the nature, as we can't live on any other 'kingdom' ;) But then it would leave another question, who created the earth?
Oh don't be so modest, the entire existence was created for humans, unfortunately humans need another entire existence created for them that they might be happy little robots.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
labambah
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 5:49:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:34:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:24:32 PM, labambah wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
Atheism is the neutral position...

You may begin.

As far as I have considered it, I think that God exists. But not in a form we think (not an eternal living thing in form of a human). I believe this simply because believing the galaxies to be 'popped out of nowhere' is actually more illogical than saying that 'God made it happen'.
The puddle woke up and realised that the hole it occupied fitted it so well that the only answer was that the hole was designed specifically for it.
But the bigger question is: why does it matter if God exists or not? Do some lose meaning in their life if it doesn't?
What is this god that allegedly exists.
To me believing in God brings more than not to. And I don't mean thinking that God is some kind of helicopter parent, fixing everything in my life and what not, if I just pray hard/believe hard enough. No... I mean that it makes me more humble for life when I see it as a gift and not as set of lucky random occurrence.
So it's your hubris that is flattered by your need for gods. Whatever.
PS. Many means nature with the word 'God'. It has made everything we see, gives life and takes life when it pleases. So God for humans is the nature, as we can't live on any other 'kingdom' ;) But then it would leave another question, who created the earth?
Oh don't be so modest, the entire existence was created for humans, unfortunately humans need another entire existence created for them that they might be happy little robots.

Oh cmon! :D

I can also go your way and say that you believing in 'big boom' is childish! Like nothing out of nothing... BS! Science has proven that there can't be nothing and then suddenly be something.

The God what we are talking about here is the thing which gets people all emotional.. you know, the pal of Spaghetti monster.

And no, my existance doesn't need explanation. It just sucks to think that you are some dirt on planet earth that just came and goes (even if it's totally true). It certainly doesn't make world any better if eveyone thinks like that... or does it? If you really think it hard... imagine a world born without any religion. Eveyone just being Machiavellist, no one given a s*** about poor and sick.

I don't believe in afterlife. Except that it's true. Things which are part of me now, will be later parts of something else. Maybe real pile of dirt, with the exception that the dirt pile is no longer aware of itself.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 5:53:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

If you do not give evidence, then in your perspective, no.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 5:59:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 5:53:28 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

If you do not give evidence, then in your perspective, no.

Again, you're completely missing what I'm arguing. I don't have the patience to explore any of those arguments for God's existence right now -- beyond exploring what KIND of argument they are. One of the very first sentences in your original post conflates the God of classical theism, and the type of support given for Him, with the gods of various tribal belief systems. It's overlooking a common philosophical distinction.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:01:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 4:24:32 PM, labambah wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
Atheism is the neutral position...

You may begin.

As far as I have considered it, I think that God exists. But not in a form we think (not an eternal living thing in form of a human). I believe this simply because believing the galaxies to be 'popped out of nowhere' is actually more illogical than saying that 'God made it happen'.

But the bigger question is: why does it matter if God exists or not? Do some lose meaning in their life if it doesn't?

To me believing in God brings more than not to. And I don't mean thinking that God is some kind of helicopter parent, fixing everything in my life and what not, if I just pray hard/believe hard enough. No... I mean that it makes me more humble for life when I see it as a gift and not as set of lucky random occurrence.

PS. Many means nature with the word 'God'. It has made everything we see, gives life and takes life when it pleases. So God for humans is the nature, as we can't live on any other 'kingdom' ;) But then it would leave another question, who created the earth?

Why do you have the opinion its more illogical for it to exist from nothing, and assume nothing is all science will find in the future when it could be something. But then you would say that something new couldn't be from nothing and then claim a god made it beyond that. Then we could still possibly find an explanation for that, then ad infinitum.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:03:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 5:59:23 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:53:28 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

If you do not give evidence, then in your perspective, no.

Again, you're completely missing what I'm arguing. I don't have the patience to explore any of those arguments for God's existence right now -- beyond exploring what KIND of argument they are. One of the very first sentences in your original post conflates the God of classical theism, and the type of support given for Him, with the gods of various tribal belief systems. It's overlooking a common philosophical distinction.

If its so common why can't you tell me what it is? All you are doing is criticizing my fair neutral position for not assuming you are correct and know what you are talking about. But I do not see you know what you are talking about unless you share with me how you know, and what you think you know.
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:04:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 5:49:30 PM, labambah wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:34:40 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:24:32 PM, labambah wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
Atheism is the neutral position...

You may begin.

As far as I have considered it, I think that God exists. But not in a form we think (not an eternal living thing in form of a human). I believe this simply because believing the galaxies to be 'popped out of nowhere' is actually more illogical than saying that 'God made it happen'.
The puddle woke up and realised that the hole it occupied fitted it so well that the only answer was that the hole was designed specifically for it.
But the bigger question is: why does it matter if God exists or not? Do some lose meaning in their life if it doesn't?
What is this god that allegedly exists.
To me believing in God brings more than not to. And I don't mean thinking that God is some kind of helicopter parent, fixing everything in my life and what not, if I just pray hard/believe hard enough. No... I mean that it makes me more humble for life when I see it as a gift and not as set of lucky random occurrence.
So it's your hubris that is flattered by your need for gods. Whatever.
PS. Many means nature with the word 'God'. It has made everything we see, gives life and takes life when it pleases. So God for humans is the nature, as we can't live on any other 'kingdom' ;) But then it would leave another question, who created the earth?
Oh don't be so modest, the entire existence was created for humans, unfortunately humans need another entire existence created for them that they might be happy little robots.

Oh cmon! :D

I can also go your way and say that you believing in 'big boom' is childish! Like nothing out of nothing... BS! Science has proven that there can't be nothing and then suddenly be something.
Who are you talking to and what are you talking about? Do you ken atheism?
The God what we are talking about here is the thing which gets people all emotional.. you know, the pal of Spaghetti monster.
What is a spaghetti monster other than a fictional character invented as a counterpoint to the fictional gods invented earlier?
And no, my existance doesn't need explanation. It just sucks to think that you are some dirt on planet earth that just came and goes (even if it's totally true).
Oh you need to be so much more special than that, your insecurities are a reflection of the insecurities demonstrated by the god you've invented.
It certainly doesn't make world any better if eveyone thinks like that... or does it? If you really think it hard... imagine a world born without any religion. Eveyone just being Machiavellist, no one given a s*** about poor and sick.
Yeah Catholics and Mega Churches et al. I'm a much better person than so many of the godbotherers that infect this site. It's why I laugh so much when I'm here.
I don't believe in afterlife. Except that it's true.
Now that is FUNNY.
Things which are part of me now, will be later parts of something else. Maybe real pile of dirt, with the exception that the dirt pile is no longer aware of itself.
I don't know whether anyone has told you yet, but dirt isn't alive.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:08:17 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:03:23 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:59:23 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:53:28 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

If you do not give evidence, then in your perspective, no.

Again, you're completely missing what I'm arguing. I don't have the patience to explore any of those arguments for God's existence right now -- beyond exploring what KIND of argument they are. One of the very first sentences in your original post conflates the God of classical theism, and the type of support given for Him, with the gods of various tribal belief systems. It's overlooking a common philosophical distinction.

If its so common why can't you tell me what it is? All you are doing is criticizing my fair neutral position for not assuming you are correct and know what you are talking about. But I do not see you know what you are talking about unless you share with me how you know, and what you think you know.

lmao, I've explained about five times just in this thread. The difference is between a claim based on a deductive argument (for instance, mathematical proofs) and a claim based on empirical observation (for instance, that a new species of insect exists). The gods of pagan belief systems, insofar as they are limited beings whose essence and existence are not identical, are based on the latter; i.e., I empirically observe thunder, therefore Thor exists. The God of classical theism is based on the former; i.e., all existence must necessarily come from the first principle of existence. I'm trying to show the KIND of argument that's being made.
AtheistBrony
Posts: 83
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:11:05 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:08:17 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 6:03:23 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:59:23 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:53:28 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

If you do not give evidence, then in your perspective, no.

Again, you're completely missing what I'm arguing. I don't have the patience to explore any of those arguments for God's existence right now -- beyond exploring what KIND of argument they are. One of the very first sentences in your original post conflates the God of classical theism, and the type of support given for Him, with the gods of various tribal belief systems. It's overlooking a common philosophical distinction.

If its so common why can't you tell me what it is? All you are doing is criticizing my fair neutral position for not assuming you are correct and know what you are talking about. But I do not see you know what you are talking about unless you share with me how you know, and what you think you know.

lmao, I've explained about five times just in this thread. The difference is between a claim based on a deductive argument (for instance, mathematical proofs) and a claim based on empirical observation (for instance, that a new species of insect exists). The gods of pagan belief systems, insofar as they are limited beings whose essence and existence are not identical, are based on the latter; i.e., I empirically observe thunder, therefore Thor exists. The God of classical theism is based on the former; i.e., all existence must necessarily come from the first principle of existence. I'm trying to show the KIND of argument that's being made.

I'll try to get it so I will ask questions.
So 'all existence must come from the first principle of existence' well that makes it easy then, whats the first principle of existence and how do we know it?
They say they want to save people from hell, but I see them trying to save people with hell. They deny science when on a computer. They say the bible is metaphors for some parts and not others, and follow some parts and not others. They believe their culture more than their bible they supposedly follow, and will deny any contradictions of the bible. Then say we are the dishonest ones? Since we don't believe in a deity which is equally as convincing as any other then god made the devil knowingly?
Quintilian
Posts: 35
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:19:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:11:05 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 6:08:17 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 6:03:23 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:59:23 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 5:53:28 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 4:08:44 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:53:38 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:37:26 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:31:31 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:24:13 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:17:34 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:12:51 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 3:05:35 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
At 7/5/2016 2:47:15 PM, Quintilian wrote:
At 7/5/2016 1:51:36 PM, AtheistBrony wrote:
we are merely honest that all gods are equally valid,

So, the mountain god(s) of this-or-that Native American tribe are equally likely to exist as the God argued to exist by Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna, Maimonides et al?

From the stance of zero evidence yes.
But also if they had risen to the age of enlightenment they too might've made similar claims of their gods, can the arguments used by philosophy and such be used for theirs as well? What arguments were used?

You're taking this word 'evidence' to mean something akin to 'experimental observation.' None of those philosophers were arguing based on such evidence, because God's existence was not a conclusion to be reached within the physical sciences. It'd be like trying to find 'experimental evidence' to validate a purely deductive mathematical proof.

The age of enlightenment was a reaction to the broad philosophical ideas that formed the basis of classical theism. You can't understand the traditional arguments for God's existence without returning to that framework, and they'd be frankly unintelligible in the framework in which you seem to be working.

Reread what I said.

Are you asking whether Native Americans could justifiably use Aristotelian/Platonist/Thomistic/etc. arguments for the existence of their mountain gods? The answer to that is no, unless the Native American god in question is metaphysically identical to the classical theist conception of Him.

You haven't even told me what the supposed argument was.

Because there's been literally hundreds of arguments for a single conception of God developed over centuries of classical theistic thinking, and none of them can be applied to anything other than one who is the ultimate principle of all existence. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that this God is more probable to exist than the mountain gods of Native Americans or other tribal divinities. If you're going to confront theism, do so with an idea of what you're actually attacking. Trying to sweep all 'gods' that have ever been concocted into a single camp would alienate you from a legitimate debate that's been going on for a very long time.
Special pleading.
All the other gods are man made but yours is real.
That is the same argument proposed by those who believe in each of the other gods. In fact all gods are the claims made by man, claims that are made without substantiation.
Ergo atheism.

special pleading, haha. The amount of arrogance needed to dismiss millennia of classical theistic philosophers, arguing for a God metaphysically distinct from tribal gods, is overwhelming. Oh, what do they know? Their sky fairy could be any sky fairy! It's debate.org (TM), should I expect anything different?

If you do not give evidence, then in your perspective, no.

Again, you're completely missing what I'm arguing. I don't have the patience to explore any of those arguments for God's existence right now -- beyond exploring what KIND of argument they are. One of the very first sentences in your original post conflates the God of classical theism, and the type of support given for Him, with the gods of various tribal belief systems. It's overlooking a common philosophical distinction.

If its so common why can't you tell me what it is? All you are doing is criticizing my fair neutral position for not assuming you are correct and know what you are talking about. But I do not see you know what you are talking about unless you share with me how you know, and what you think you know.

lmao, I've explained about five times just in this thread. The difference is between a claim based on a deductive argument (for instance, mathematical proofs) and a claim based on empirical observation (for instance, that a new species of insect exists). The gods of pagan belief systems, insofar as they are limited beings whose essence and existence are not identical, are based on the latter; i.e., I empirically observe thunder, therefore Thor exists. The God of classical theism is based on the former; i.e., all existence must necessarily come from the first principle of existence. I'm trying to show the KIND of argument that's being made.

I'll try to get it so I will ask questions.
So 'all existence must come from the first principle of existence' well that makes it easy then, whats the first principle of existence and how do we know it?

It's not as easy as that. That's a summary of what most of those arguments look like. It's an oversimplification meant to show you that the arguments are MEANT to be proofs. To answer your questions about the argument, God, considered as pure actuality/existence/being (i.e., the actuality of power, knowledge, goodness, etc), is the first principle of everything else; philosophers discovered Him through reasoning about the nature of existence. Again, if you're going to do philosophy of religion, you need to understand what's being argued.
bulproof
Posts: 25,187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2016 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/5/2016 6:19:22 PM, Quintilian wrote:

philosophers discovered Him through reasoning about the nature of existence. Again, if you're going to do philosophy of religion, you need to understand what's being argued.
Philosophers didn't discover gods.
Gods were created by primitive man in an effort to comfort and protect primitive man.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin