Vancanwincup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 No offence intended, but better men have tried and also walked away shaking their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The belief argument – it’s true because I believe it to be true. Implies that belief is truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The non-belief argument - "The premise of the argument is that if God existed (and wanted humanity to know it), he would have brought about a situation in which every reasonable person believed in him; however, there are reasonable unbelievers, and therefore, this weighs against God's existence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Seems reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Yes - no different than saying something like "I don't believe God exists therefore he doesn't". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Yes - no different than saying something like "I don't believe God exists therefore he doesn't". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 You should have a word with Dajusta then. Apparently the Bible tells him that God exists because the Bible was written by God, which proves that God exists. I think he's been on the merry go 'round even longer than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The god you describe wants everyone to know he exists. The god you describe is omnipotent, and therefore capable of making everyone aware of his presence. The only evidence for the god you describe is a 2000 year old poorly sourced and self-contradicting book. Thus people do not believe the god you describe exists. Therefore he doesn't. Why is that hard to follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancanwincup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It isn't hard to follow - why aren't you getting what I am saying? It's no different than what Vancanwincup said about "the belief system". Self Contradicting? Maybe....maybe not: http://www.geocities...radictions.html Remember, all the sites that say it is are biased - that is, usually on the God does not exist side. So don't give me flack providing a source that is biased on the God does exist side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyJoeJoeJr. Shabadoo Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 You should have a word with Dajusta then. Apparently the Bible tells him that God exists because the Bible was written by God, which proves that God exists. I think he's been on the merry go 'round even longer than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBackup Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It isn't hard to follow - why aren't you getting what I am saying? It's no different than what Vancanwincup said about "the belief system". Self Contradicting? Maybe....maybe not: http://www.geocities...radictions.html Remember, all the sites that say it is are biased - that is, usually on the God does not exist side. So don't give me flack providing a source that is biased on the God does exist side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Alright then show how I'm a hypocrite. BTW where are those logical fallacies? I am a pastor. I speak from the heart. If something offends you then please reveal which post I have offended you. Ultimately, I'm on the purpose of defending the notion of God and the deity of Christ. Atheists might feel threatened by my presence. Some find it encouraging. Either way, I am as true as I try to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Seems many missed this post i will post it again A really great read for anyone questioning the creation of the universe. What I think many here are forgetting is simply "I think therefore I am" http://tillerfoundat...ctsCreation.pdf Consider that we are all living in a postulated third dimensional reality and that WE are the gods just playing knuckle headed games with one another. Do creationist really believe that A single God or supreme omnipotent being created MEST(Matter ,energy , space and time ?) I highly doubt it but cannot myself prove it. We cant even agree on how many dimensions there are let alone who we should invade next month for profit! Classical physics claims 3 dimensions. String theory says 10. M theory 11. Hilbert claims there are infinite dimensions( I tend to agree here) What is the real answer? Will we ever know ? I doubt it. Unless someone enters the nearest blackhole and sends us a postcard from the other of the other side all this arguing over if there is a GOD is pretty much pointless. Unless we can shed our physical bodies and travel inter/extra dimensionally we will never know. Our current grasp of dimensional physics is purely theoretical and until concrete evidence can establish any of these theories we are left to toil in our ignorant misery of misunderstanding one another. At least science is making an effort to prove something based on results of tested theories. Religion basically says believe this story or burn in hell ? Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. I do not classify myself as atheist or religious by an means but I sure as hell do not believe ONE BEING is responsible for this beautiful evolutionary concoction of gasses and elements we call the known universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I have shown you examples of both hypocrisy and logical fallacy yet you either refuse to read the posts or lack the ability to understand; your not defending your religion, your doing it a disservice. Please understand that there isn't an atheist in the world who would feel threatened by your logic. The few arguing with you here feel more frustration at your lack of reason more than any other emotion, hence the circle diagrams etc, Sharpy's suicide attempt with hot pokers etc. "Either way, I am as true as I try to be" is one of the few statements you've made that actually shows humility. Your opponents also feel this way about themselves as well so why don't you actually read what they have to say instead of "being on the purpose of defending the notion of God and the deity of Christ"? We read and understand what you write, but the sentiment is surely not reciprocated (especially when you mock others, a fact you haven't dared to acknowledge, pastor); that is what I find offensive about your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Of course..there MUST be problems with the video How is a poor explanation? He's simply explaining the differences b.etween a watch, or your example, a computer monitor, and something that's undergone natural forces, like corral have. That's the whole effing point! There are differences in natural objects and man made objects, which is why the analogy of a watchmaker or a monitor-maker by theists is so effing ridiculous. And the other point which you even brought up is the other part of the whole friggin point. Coral is made through a natural process, WHICH!!!! then makes God unnecessary, because there's a natural explanation available for coal, that doesn't f@#%ing exist for f@#$ing watches and f@#$ing computer monitors. How you can't see the logic to this rebuttal makes me want to commit suicide by poking red hot pokers through my eyes into my brain in a swirling scrambled eggs fashion. So, according to you, it's true that complexity and design are independent of each other, but somehow it's sleight of hand??? Where are my pokers!?! Seriously, just read the red highlighted part a few times, and tell me honestly that you don't see the problem with that, or the need to gouge my eyes out, because then you go on to say that the complexities are a product of a natural process, which is the same refutation and logic used to refute the first point in the teleological argument, up there in the 1st point, which is that there is no design by a designer but instead a natural process that produced us and everything. Ahhhh!!!!! I feel like i'm going crazy even having to point this out. SO your answer is God works in mysterious ways..... The old classics never get old. You missed the point entirely. The point was that if someone was as smart, wise and as powerful as God is claimed to be, then he as a master designer, like even the lesser master designers here on earth, would not have included inefficient and oft time useless and unnecessary parts to the finished product that they are claimed to have designed. It's actually a very strong point...which only leaves you the wiggle room of "God works in mysterious ways" which is the biggest cop out ever, since it's a sure sign that the person saying it doesn't have a goddamned clue and sticks this place-holder response until they they can either move some goal-posts or wait for some scientific knowledge to leech onto as if it was the answer to that particular question all along!. Gag me. Absolutely spot on, IF you actually understood the argument's logic. By the way, just for a larff.....exactly which logical fallacy or fallacies did the guy commit? Show me a simple being that can make complex things using thought and design.....not instinct now, but actual thoughtful design. I bet you can only think of humans thus far. WELL, according to you, you concede that intelligent beings such as ourselves can design complex things such as computer monitors and space shuttles and large particle colliders. I mean you'd agree that they're complex things right? However, you and your kind, also claim that we and the universe were ALSO created in the way that we create what we create, because we are complex and the universe is complex and that things THAT complex MUST have been designed, because it works so well, and is so 'fine-tuned'.....remember?? So, the argument in rebut AND its logical regressive path can be charted from that asserted claim as supported by its own inference(that the universe is complex fine tuned, ergo must have come from a creator) that a complex thing would need a complex designer, especially one that was able to create a whole universe. It just means that this creator is also a complex being because a simple being couldn't have thought up, designed and built such a complex thing. But, as the argument goes, if a watch is complex and needs a complex creator, and the universe is complex and needed a creator, then a complex being like God, would logically raise the question, (and that's the magic word here big guy...LOGICALLLY) who designed the designer and who or what created the creator, because that creator would have to be even more complex, and on and on into an infinite regression.......that's called logic and that's how formal logic is applied to bullsh!# claims in order to show just how full of bullsh!# they really are. I don't even want to bother with the last point.....it's pointless, and I know that my purpose in life isn't to beat my head against the wall, which is what would happen if I tackled anymore of this. And no, the author did not fail to provide logical responses to the teleological argument, he in fact present very logical argument. The problem lies in the fact that you don't know what 'logic' is, what its fallacies are, and have got a grasp on even a shred of a piece of a sliver of formal logic in that bible-soaked brain of yours, God luv ya, dajusta. It would take a being of infinite patience and time to explain and teach you how logic and science operates. Of that i am a full believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It would seem to me that something has to be eternal or we for sure end up in an infinite regress of causes for causes and so on. So either God is eternal, or matter is, or some kind of physical energy is or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It is self-contradicting, regardless of your stance on it. For example: In Genesis, it says that god made the beasts before man (Genesis: 1:25-1:26). It then says God made man, and didn't want him to be alone, so he created the beasts (Genesis 2:18-2:19) In Matthew, Luke and John, Jesus is quoted as having 3 entirely different sets of last words.(Matthew 27:46,50, Luke 23:46, John 19:30) In Samuel, it is said that God provoked David to number Israel, and then in Chronicles it is said that it was Satan who provoked David to number Israel (Samuel 24:, Chronicles 21) In Matthew it is said that Jesus was given vinegar to drink during his trial (Matthew 27:34,) In Mark it is said that it was wine Jesus was given(Mark 15:23). In Matthew, it is said that Joseph and Mary had to escape to Egypt until Herod's death to avoid his wrath. (Matthew 2:13-16) In Luke it says they returned to Galilee, and Jesus grew up there. (Luke 2:39) Among others, these are all contradictions. Whether you believe the Bible is accurate or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Which is very sad. If God is truly real, then there are implications that are far greater than your own. Only a fool will reject counsel, and the wise fear God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Simple question: Why do you need "God" to exist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 It is self-contradicting, regardless of your stance on it. For example: In Genesis, it says that god made the beasts before man (Genesis: 1:25-1:26). It then says God made man, and didn't want him to be alone, so he created the beasts (Genesis 2:18-2:19) In Matthew, Luke and John, Jesus is quoted as having 3 entirely different sets of last words.(Matthew 27:46,50, Luke 23:46, John 19:30) In Samuel, it is said that God provoked David to number Israel, and then in Chronicles it is said that it was Satan who provoked David to number Israel (Samuel 24:, Chronicles 21) In Matthew it is said that Jesus was given vinegar to drink during his trial (Matthew 27:34,) In Mark it is said that it was wine Jesus was given(Mark 15:23). In Matthew, it is said that Joseph and Mary had to escape to Egypt until Herod's death to avoid his wrath. (Matthew 2:13-16) In Luke it says they returned to Galilee, and Jesus grew up there. (Luke 2:39) Among others, these are all contradictions. Whether you believe the Bible is accurate or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.