Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Simple yet effective evidences of God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:22:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:17:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
The usual rubbish. Non sequitur after non sequitur.
You never learn anything.

They're all true. Pick one to discuss.
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:25:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:22:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:17:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
The usual rubbish. Non sequitur after non sequitur.
You never learn anything.

They're all true. Pick one to discuss.

They've all been discussed ad nauseam. You never learn anything.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:27:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:25:40 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:22:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:17:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
The usual rubbish. Non sequitur after non sequitur.
You never learn anything.

They're all true. Pick one to discuss.

They've all been discussed ad nauseam. You never learn anything.

The implications just follow logically.
Looncall
Posts: 460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:27:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:22:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:17:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
The usual rubbish. Non sequitur after non sequitur.
You never learn anything.

They're all true. Pick one to discuss.

So, show us how they are true. Your thens do not follow from your ifs. Show your workings, be specific.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:28:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:27:35 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:22:50 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:17:47 AM, dee-em wrote:
The usual rubbish. Non sequitur after non sequitur.
You never learn anything.

They're all true. Pick one to discuss.

So, show us how they are true. Your thens do not follow from your ifs. Show your workings, be specific.

Choose which point you disagree with most and we'll discuss.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:57:16 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.

Why do you include the word "actual"? In what way would omitting it change the assertions?

I asked you to give an assertion that could lead to God's existence being disproved, not one that renders it "not required". Do you accept that not requiring God's existence is the same as disproving it? If not, why have you changed the wording?

Regardless of what looks like some sophistry in changing the terms used, the world is either "actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" according to the law of the exlcuded middle. There is no other possibility. You have excluded any possibility which could disprove the conclusion, thereby invalidating your argument, as it fails the test of falsifiability.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:07:48 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:57:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.

Why do you include the word "actual"? In what way would omitting it change the assertions?

It represents the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

I asked you to give an assertion that could lead to God's existence being disproved, not one that renders it "not required". Do you accept that not requiring God's existence is the same as disproving it? If not, why have you changed the wording?

If actual perfection and imperfection exist, then God's existence is a necessary precondition. If actual perfection and imperfection don't exist, then humanity can't have inherent purpose because ideals would be completely subjective. This would disprove any God that created humanity for a purpose.

Regardless of what looks like some sophistry in changing the terms used, the world is either "actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" according to the law of the exlcuded middle. There is no other possibility. You have excluded any possibility which could disprove the conclusion, thereby invalidating your argument, as it fails the test of falsifiability.

Just like something objectively moral or objectively immoral entails God's existence, so does objective perfection and objective imperfection. Excluded middle would be a dichotomy between "actually perfect" and "not actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" and "not actually imperfect."
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:10:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

Vestigial traits exist. Therefore God doesn't exist. BOOM HEAD SHOT! http://io9.gizmodo.com...

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

You use morally objective terms to prove moral objectivity - circular logic. If we say they're true or false that's an objective statement, nice trap.

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

Define affairs and how one can for certainly know you're describing actual affairs.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

God poses the logical absurdity the same way the existence of the universe poses. Who created God? No one? Why does the Universe need a creator?

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

lol this one doesn't make any sense.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

Subjectively good exists.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

"Money has inherent value" is a lie. Yet people treat money as such. Lies can create cohesion in society.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

These are all subjective terms that can applied to any action or person based on the perspective of the one making the judgement.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:17:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:07:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:57:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.

Why do you include the word "actual"? In what way would omitting it change the assertions?

It represents the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

I asked you to give an assertion that could lead to God's existence being disproved, not one that renders it "not required". Do you accept that not requiring God's existence is the same as disproving it? If not, why have you changed the wording?

If actual perfection and imperfection exist, then God's existence is a necessary precondition. If actual perfection and imperfection don't exist, then humanity can't have inherent purpose because ideals would be completely subjective. This would disprove any God that created humanity for a purpose.

Regardless of what looks like some sophistry in changing the terms used, the world is either "actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" according to the law of the exlcuded middle. There is no other possibility. You have excluded any possibility which could disprove the conclusion, thereby invalidating your argument, as it fails the test of falsifiability.

Just like something objectively moral or objectively immoral entails God's existence, so does objective perfection and objective imperfection. Excluded middle would be a dichotomy between "actually perfect" and "not actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" and "not actually imperfect."

Imperfect means not perfect.

Therefore Actually imperfect means not actually perfect.

This satisfies the dichotomy you stipulate, and therefore my point stands, and the argument fails.

I don't see any point rehashing the subjective/morality discussion, it's been done to death. In any case, it's not necessary, the above is enough.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:25:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:10:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

Vestigial traits exist. Therefore God doesn't exist. BOOM HEAD SHOT! http://io9.gizmodo.com...

This is like me claiming "if morality is objective, God must exist." To which you reply, "morality is sometimes subjective, therefore you're disproven."

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

You use morally objective terms to prove moral objectivity - circular logic. If we say they're true or false that's an objective statement, nice trap.

No they're either factually true or not factually true. If they're not factually true then this entails subjectivism or nihilism is true.

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

Define affairs and how one can for certainly know you're describing actual affairs.

By actual state of affairs I mean reality as it really is.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

God poses the logical absurdity the same way the existence of the universe poses. Who created God? No one? Why does the Universe need a creator?

If the universe was created by the free will of an eternally existent thing then this is the only non-logically absurd option since it wouldn't quantify the eternal thing's existence..

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

lol this one doesn't make any sense.

Actual imperfection entails that humanity has inherent ends in which they deviate from.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

Subjectively good exists.

So you agree with my initial point.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

"Money has inherent value" is a lie. Yet people treat money as such. Lies can create cohesion in society.

Do you agree or disagree with my initial statement?

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

These are all subjective terms that can applied to any action or person based on the perspective of the one making the judgement.

So you agree or disagree with my initial point ?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:36:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:17:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:07:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:57:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.

Why do you include the word "actual"? In what way would omitting it change the assertions?

It represents the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

I asked you to give an assertion that could lead to God's existence being disproved, not one that renders it "not required". Do you accept that not requiring God's existence is the same as disproving it? If not, why have you changed the wording?

If actual perfection and imperfection exist, then God's existence is a necessary precondition. If actual perfection and imperfection don't exist, then humanity can't have inherent purpose because ideals would be completely subjective. This would disprove any God that created humanity for a purpose.

Regardless of what looks like some sophistry in changing the terms used, the world is either "actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" according to the law of the exlcuded middle. There is no other possibility. You have excluded any possibility which could disprove the conclusion, thereby invalidating your argument, as it fails the test of falsifiability.

Just like something objectively moral or objectively immoral entails God's existence, so does objective perfection and objective imperfection. Excluded middle would be a dichotomy between "actually perfect" and "not actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" and "not actually imperfect."

Imperfect means not perfect.

Therefore Actually imperfect means not actually perfect.

"Actually imperfect" would mean "actually not perfect" instead of "not actually perfect."

The way you worded the dichotomy at first is equivalent to saying that something is actually moral or actually immoral by law of exlcuded middle.

This satisfies the dichotomy you stipulate, and therefore my point stands, and the argument fails.

I don't see any point rehashing the subjective/morality discussion, it's been done to death. In any case, it's not necessary, the above is enough.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 1:45:43 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:25:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:10:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

Vestigial traits exist. Therefore God doesn't exist. BOOM HEAD SHOT! http://io9.gizmodo.com...

This is like me claiming "if morality is objective, God must exist." To which you reply, "morality is sometimes subjective, therefore you're disproven."

Just because you claim morality is sometimes objective doesn't make it so. You always pose moral questions devoid of human context and rely on definitions which are subjective based on perspective. Morality can't exist in a vacuum.

When it comes to organs your analogy doesn't work. Given that evolution is true, and vestigial organs point to such, saying that 'Organs have a purpose' is false seeing how through evolution function does not imply 'purpose' in the sense you're claim it substantiates God.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

You use morally objective terms to prove moral objectivity - circular logic. If we say they're true or false that's an objective statement, nice trap.

No they're either factually true or not factually true. If they're not factually true then this entails subjectivism or nihilism is true.

Indeed, subjectivism is the case.

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

Define affairs and how one can for certainly know you're describing actual affairs.

By actual state of affairs I mean reality as it really is.

And what about the second part?

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

God poses the logical absurdity the same way the existence of the universe poses. Who created God? No one? Why does the Universe need a creator?

If the universe was created by the free will of an eternally existent thing then this is the only non-logically absurd option since it wouldn't quantify the eternal thing's existence..

IF! And again rehashing the same argument without backing it up doesn't make for a good argument. You've yet to show why we could consider this eternal thing to have free will - we can't even comprehend eternity yet you claim knowledge upon it.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

lol this one doesn't make any sense.

Actual imperfection entails that humanity has inherent ends in which they deviate from.

Imperfection also means deviation from idealized ends - those ends manifested by humans themselves.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

Subjectively good exists.

So you agree with my initial point.

No, because your initial point is based on objectively good.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

"Money has inherent value" is a lie. Yet people treat money as such. Lies can create cohesion in society.

Do you agree or disagree with my initial statement?

Of course not. Great dodge by the way. Just like with all those other moral scenarios i've posed to you in the past. You have no methodology to determining what is objectively morally right or wrong.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

These are all subjective terms that can applied to any action or person based on the perspective of the one making the judgement.

So you agree or disagree with my initial point ?

Keep dodging Ben, it suits you.
Skeptical1
Posts: 697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:45:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:36:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:17:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:07:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:57:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.

Why do you include the word "actual"? In what way would omitting it change the assertions?

It represents the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

I asked you to give an assertion that could lead to God's existence being disproved, not one that renders it "not required". Do you accept that not requiring God's existence is the same as disproving it? If not, why have you changed the wording?

If actual perfection and imperfection exist, then God's existence is a necessary precondition. If actual perfection and imperfection don't exist, then humanity can't have inherent purpose because ideals would be completely subjective. This would disprove any God that created humanity for a purpose.

Regardless of what looks like some sophistry in changing the terms used, the world is either "actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" according to the law of the exlcuded middle. There is no other possibility. You have excluded any possibility which could disprove the conclusion, thereby invalidating your argument, as it fails the test of falsifiability.

Just like something objectively moral or objectively immoral entails God's existence, so does objective perfection and objective imperfection. Excluded middle would be a dichotomy between "actually perfect" and "not actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" and "not actually imperfect."

Imperfect means not perfect.

Therefore Actually imperfect means not actually perfect.

"Actually imperfect" would mean "actually not perfect" instead of "not actually perfect."

They are synonyms, unless you can describe the difference.


The way you worded the dichotomy at first is equivalent to saying that something is actually moral or actually immoral by law of exlcuded middle.

That is also true, because immoral means not moral. And, equally, not actually moral and actually not moral are also synonyms. If I had said that, I would have been correct in my assertion.

There are certainly cases where the terms cannot be transposed:

not entirely blue <> entirely not blue

this is because "entirely" changes the meaning of the statement. "Actually" is a redundancy.

It is raining today.
It is actually raining today.

The sky is blue.
The sky is actually blue.

Its presence in such statements performs no function, therefore can be ignored.


This satisfies the dichotomy you stipulate, and therefore my point stands, and the argument fails.

I don't see any point rehashing the subjective/morality discussion, it's been done to death. In any case, it's not necessary, the above is enough.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 3:34:53 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
I responded to every idea you have. Pick the ones that interest you the most and we can see if your claims have merit.

At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

Purpose assumes design so you are right. But they can still have operation within the body, this doesn't assume design. Why do you believe that organs have purpose rather than just operation?

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong.
If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

Agreed. But how do you know objective morality exists?

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

How so?

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

How so?

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

How so?

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.
If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

True beliefs , healthiness, intelligence, some virtuosity, strength, and attrativeness allow me to better survive and make myself happy rather than be miserable. This reason doesn't require God. Being attractive means I get more sex which is awesome.
Willows
Posts: 2,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 11:43:23 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

So what. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:42:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 11:43:23 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

So what. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If

If you believe that any of the conditions are true, then God must exist. If you believe that all of the conditions are untrue, then there's no problem.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 4:58:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 1:45:43 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:25:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:10:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

Vestigial traits exist. Therefore God doesn't exist. BOOM HEAD SHOT! http://io9.gizmodo.com...

This is like me claiming "if morality is objective, God must exist." To which you reply, "morality is sometimes subjective, therefore you're disproven."

Just because you claim morality is sometimes objective doesn't make it so. You always pose moral questions devoid of human context and rely on definitions which are subjective based on perspective. Morality can't exist in a vacuum.

When it comes to organs your analogy doesn't work. Given that evolution is true, and vestigial organs point to such, saying that 'Organs have a purpose' is false seeing how through evolution function does not imply 'purpose' in the sense you're claim it substantiates God.

All organs (the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, stomach, etc.) have no purpose. If you agree with that statement then we have no issue.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

You use morally objective terms to prove moral objectivity - circular logic. If we say they're true or false that's an objective statement, nice trap.

No they're either factually true or not factually true. If they're not factually true then this entails subjectivism or nihilism is true.

Indeed, subjectivism is the case.

Ok, so you believe that all of the moral statements listed in the OP are subjectively true. No issue.

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

Define affairs and how one can for certainly know you're describing actual affairs.

By actual state of affairs I mean reality as it really is.

And what about the second part?

That's the problem. If atheism is true, reality is fundamentally non-mental. We can only perceive or conceive of reality mentally. By law of excluded middle, we can never perceive or conceive of the fundamental, non-mental reality.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

God poses the logical absurdity the same way the existence of the universe poses. Who created God? No one? Why does the Universe need a creator?

If the universe was created by the free will of an eternally existent thing then this is the only non-logically absurd option since it wouldn't quantify the eternal thing's existence..

IF! And again rehashing the same argument without backing it up doesn't make for a good argument. You've yet to show why we could consider this eternal thing to have free will - we can't even comprehend eternity yet you claim knowledge upon it.

Any action that occurs by implicit chance will quantify the beginning of that action's occurrence by counting backwards the number of trials that led up to it. The only means for action under naturalism is implicit chance. Therefore, the origin of our universe was logically absurd if naturalism is true since implicit chance would quantity the beginning of an action within eternal nothingness or from something eternal. If an action occurs by free will, the action isn't quantifiable and this leaves the only logically possible option.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

lol this one doesn't make any sense.

Actual imperfection entails that humanity has inherent ends in which they deviate from.

Imperfection also means deviation from idealized ends - those ends manifested by humans themselves.

Do you agree or disagree with the initial statement?

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

Subjectively good exists.

So you agree with my initial point.

No, because your initial point is based on objectively good.

It was a conditional IF/THEN statement.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

"Money has inherent value" is a lie. Yet people treat money as such. Lies can create cohesion in society.

Do you agree or disagree with my initial statement?

Of course not. Great dodge by the way. Just like with all those other moral scenarios i've posed to you in the past. You have no methodology to determining what is objectively morally right or wrong.

So, "it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones." Are human ends inherently subjective?

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

These are all subjective terms that can applied to any action or person based on the perspective of the one making the judgement.

So you agree or disagree with my initial point ?

Keep dodging Ben, it suits you.

I'll take that as a yes.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:07:51 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:45:09 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:36:21 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:17:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 1:07:48 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:57:16 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:44:52 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:40:05 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:35:26 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:33:10 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Oh, why not - there is a sucker born every day, I'll bite.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If the world is perfect, God must exist.

Agree, or disagree?

If the world is actually perfect, then yes.

OK, so here is what you're proposing:

If the world is perfect, God exists.
If the world is not perfect, God exists.

Now, referring to the above two assertions (i.e. in the context of the world being perfect or not), provide me with an "If" which, given it were true, could lead to the conclusion "God does not exist".

If the world is actually perfect, God exists.
If the word is actually imperfect, God exists.

If there is not actual perfection or actual imperfection, God's existence is not required.

Why do you include the word "actual"? In what way would omitting it change the assertions?

It represents the difference between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

I asked you to give an assertion that could lead to God's existence being disproved, not one that renders it "not required". Do you accept that not requiring God's existence is the same as disproving it? If not, why have you changed the wording?

If actual perfection and imperfection exist, then God's existence is a necessary precondition. If actual perfection and imperfection don't exist, then humanity can't have inherent purpose because ideals would be completely subjective. This would disprove any God that created humanity for a purpose.

Regardless of what looks like some sophistry in changing the terms used, the world is either "actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" according to the law of the exlcuded middle. There is no other possibility. You have excluded any possibility which could disprove the conclusion, thereby invalidating your argument, as it fails the test of falsifiability.

Just like something objectively moral or objectively immoral entails God's existence, so does objective perfection and objective imperfection. Excluded middle would be a dichotomy between "actually perfect" and "not actually perfect" or "actually imperfect" and "not actually imperfect."

Imperfect means not perfect.

Therefore Actually imperfect means not actually perfect.

"Actually imperfect" would mean "actually not perfect" instead of "not actually perfect."

They are synonyms, unless you can describe the difference.

"Actually imperfect" or "actually not perfect" means there is a deviation from a true standard of perfection.

"Not actually imperfect" or "not actually perfect" means there is not a deviation from a true standard of perfection.

One entails the existence of a true standard while the other does not.


The way you worded the dichotomy at first is equivalent to saying that something is actually moral or actually immoral by law of exlcuded middle.

That is also true, because immoral means not moral. And, equally, not actually moral and actually not moral are also synonyms. If I had said that, I would have been correct in my assertion.

There are certainly cases where the terms cannot be transposed:

not entirely blue <> entirely not blue

this is because "entirely" changes the meaning of the statement. "Actually" is a redundancy.

It is raining today.
It is actually raining today.

The sky is blue.
The sky is actually blue.

Its presence in such statements performs no function, therefore can be ignored.

Whether there's a true standard of morality or perfection or not is contestable. Nobody generally take issue with empirical reality as representing a true standard that corresponds to an actual state of affairs.


This satisfies the dichotomy you stipulate, and therefore my point stands, and the argument fails.

I don't see any point rehashing the subjective/morality discussion, it's been done to death. In any case, it's not necessary, the above is enough.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:09:35 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Ben, I have no idea how you manage to connect the dots between all of those things and "God must exist" but surely you've listed so many that you might as well just say if the sky is blue, God must exist, if people eat food, God must exist...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

1. You haven't demonstrated the condition of each and any of your conditional if>then statements is true. Therefore your arguments are incomplete.

2. You haven't even demonstrated that any of your conditional statements themselves are true. Via. What rules of logic and inference do you derive *any* of the above?

Ergo, literally none of them are evidence, by definition.

Evidence would be something that fulfils a conditional. E.g. The following argument:

1. If God does not exist, good will not exist
2. Good exists
C. God exists

The existence of good would be evidence of God': existence. The conditional itself is not evidence, though (even assuming the conditional is true).

You entire post is a gish gallop clusterfuck non sequitur which by definition is not 'evidence'.
KwLm
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 5:57:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 4:42:22 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/31/2016 11:43:23 AM, Willows wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

So what. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If

If you believe that any of the conditions are true, then God must exist. If you believe that all of the conditions are untrue, then there's no problem.

Answering your claims means nothing, saying your statements are true only means your statements are true to the person reading it, you have no proof of your Gods existence. , can you talk with "God", can you see "God", Can you feel "God", could you taste "God", can you smell "God", can you say with 100% certainty you know where "God" is and can show proof of your knowledge, How does "God" look, Does "God" need sustenance, Why is your "God" real but the Egyptian "Gods" are deemed false Gods yet, they were around way before your "God" *(I'm just assuming you believe in the one God of the bible/Qua ran), and what about the Tasmanian Gods, they're meant to be older than Egyptian Gods, why are they considered false but your God is true?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:09:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I find it hilarious that you say it "evidences" instead of the correct way of saying it, "pieces of evidence".
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

Eh, wrong.
If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

Non-sequitur.
If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

Same here.
If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

Just false.
If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

Non-sequitur.
If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

Correct; but there isn't (unless you mean subjectively good; if so, non-sequitur).
If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

Non-sequitur.
If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Same as the "good person" argument.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:12:38 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Since this is pretty much tbe same thread you always start, how about sticking to just the one and not running away when the questions get too tough? ALL the above have been addressed for you on numerous occasions. The answers are the same now as they were then. If you have nothing new to add to the discussion, shut up about it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 6:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 5:09:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:15:24 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
If your organs have purpose, God must exist.

If any of the following statements are factually true, God must exist: "compassion isn't morally equivalent to cruelty", "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong", and "people's moral judgements can be wrong."

If we can describe an actual state of affairs by perception or conception, God must exist.

If the origin of our universe wasn't a logical absurdity, God must exist.

If the world is actually imperfect, God must exist.

If there's really such thing as a good person, God must exist.

If it's actually true that we should hold true beliefs rather than fictitious ones, God must exist.

If it's truly better to be healthy, intelligent, virtuous, strong, and attractive rather than diseased, ignorant, dishonest, weak, and ugly then God must exist.

Ben, I have no idea how you manage to connect the dots between all of those things and "God must exist" but surely you've listed so many that you might as well just say if the sky is blue, God must exist, if people eat food, God must exist...

Choose whichever statement you most disagree with and I'll show you how it connects.