Argument for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-04-2013, 05:36 PM
RE: Argument for God
Cosmological Argument for the existence of god

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

But this argument fails because #2 cannot be proven, the First Cause argument.

This where I think he's trying to take this thread. Then again maybe he just wants to start a thread so he can throw some insults out.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.” ~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 05:40 PM
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 05:36 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Cosmological Argument for the existence of god

1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.

But this argument fails because #2 cannot be proven, the First Cause argument.

This where I think he's trying to take this thread. Then again maybe he just wants to start a thread so he can throw some insults out.

I think Egor would know that this argument as been refuted already.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 05:47 PM
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 05:40 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I think Egor would know that this argument as been refuted already.

You think? I'm not so sure. Perfectly logical rebuttals seem to bounce off of his skull like it was wrapped in kevlar.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.” ~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's." - Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
02-04-2013, 05:49 PM
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 03:00 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 02:58 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Define what you mean by a thing, and then define what you mean by existence. If you plan on making this a "Word Game" the I want to know EXACTLY what I am answering.

Evasion through over-complication.

If you don't know what a "thing" is and if you don't know what "existence" is, then you're not qualified for this discussion. You're not qualified to feed or dress yourself either, if that's the case, but that's a different subject. Hobo
Translation: "Give the answers I want and only the answers I want so I can then claim victory in the end."

No thanks. Drinking Beverage

Truly strong arguments require nothing specific of the opposition.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
02-04-2013, 07:10 PM
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 02:09 PM)Egor Wrote:  I'd like to do this in the Socratic method. I think it works better. If you just lay out an argument, atheists just say, "Nope!" and stick their heads back in the sand. Doing it this way is better. Less intimidating. And if I'm asking the questions and you're giving the answers then you can't very well escape with "prove it" can you?

So, would you agree that a thing either exists or does not exist? Consider

For the most part, no. There is a limited set of things for which we have confirmed either existence or non-existence, and for these things existence is strictly either/or. But for the unconfirmed items, which are multitude, I take the Schrodinger-Cat attitude. Their existence or non-existence is undefined and NOT an either/or state. This undefined state will continue until sufficient observation to confirm the state of their existence is made.

(My views on the subject of what existence actually means and when it is or isn't clearly defined are actually a lot more involved than this, but I edited myself for the sake of brevity.)

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
02-04-2013, 07:34 PM
RE: Argument for God
Egor. Was lucifer the 1st of god's sentient creations? I was concerned because he's the Prince Of Darkness, and if there was only darkness before god said let there be light, doesn't that make god the King Of Darkness...........OhMyOdin, God is EVIL..........RUUUNNN, run away, run to....to....we're DOOOMED, DOOOOOMMMED.
Evil_monster

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2013 08:06 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 02:47 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 02:15 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Yes and no...

Next.

I need to use you for an example: You are disqualified from this discussion.

You will not argue in good faith, which makes you an intellectual coward. If that's not it, then you apparently can't tell the difference between something existing or not existing, in which case you're out of your mind and again, disqualified. Also you reveal that you haven't even thought about your atheism, which means your point of view isn't worth considering.

Feel free to stick around and be atheistic background noise. That seems to be what you're good at anyway. Dodgy
You are unfair to Anjele and equivocate in your question.
Of course things exist in terms of qualities, appearance substance, type, reaction.
Many descriptive words are applicable.
Clarification indicates existence as indicated by Anjele. (Yes and no!)

Hope can be seen to exist but unlike the god concept does not demand believers to follow dogmatic threatening dicta..................

A higher Being (Beings) could exist (ontologically) and be playing games with us (yes and no)
Causality and power, if this term is applicable, in possible higher domains, is not synonymous with "perfect being" a religious term that begs the question.

You do try, and I think you are genuine in your pursuits, on a more positive note.
I think this really should be in the philosophy section, where I have promised to restrict myself on a weekly basis, so you will have to contact me there in future.Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
02-04-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 02:57 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 02:19 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Is a concept a thing? A concept about a thing (i.e. Unicorns) can exist, but that does not mean the actual thing exists.

I can see we'll never actually get to the argument. Atheists always dodge, evade, side-step, confuse the issue, and then just start posting links to Wikipedia articles rather than answering a question.

But fine. We'll go wherever you want to go with this. Drinking Beverage

A unicorn does not exist. The concept of a unicorn does exist.

[Image: unicorn.jpg]

A concept is a thing, for sure.

The concept of a funny horned animal does not suggest the ultra convoluted and totally moral criteria you would give to your god. I'm afraid your analogy isn't at all realistic. Sorry!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-04-2013, 08:20 PM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2013 08:59 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 03:00 PM)Egor Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 02:58 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Define what you mean by a thing, and then define what you mean by existence. If you plan on making this a "Word Game" the I want to know EXACTLY what I am answering.

Evasion through over-complication.

If you don't know what a "thing" is and if you don't know what "existence" is, then you're not qualified for this discussion. You're not qualified to feed or dress yourself either, if that's the case, but that's a different subject. Hobo

Actually it's not evasion by over complication as no theist can say what "existence" is, and do so in non-temporal terms. It's the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned, and as far as Willam L. Craig is concerned. At least WLC realizes the problem, and had attempted a work-around. The Chaplain of the Green Dick is no match for even WLC. If their god requires (space)time, it's not a god. A2 has him hung by the balls, and Egsy cannot and will not address this question.

So Socrates walked around and decreed who was "disqualified" ? What a pompous ass.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
02-04-2013, 08:31 PM
RE: Argument for God
(02-04-2013 08:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-04-2013 03:00 PM)Egor Wrote:  Evasion through over-complication.

If you don't know what a "thing" is and if you don't know what "existence" is, then you're not qualified for this discussion. You're not qualified to feed or dress yourself either, if that's the case, but that's a different subject. Hobo

Actually it's not evasion by over complication as no theist can say what "existence" is, and do so in non-temporal terms. It's the crux of the matter as far as I'm concerned, and as far as Willam L. Craig is concerned. At least WLC realizes the proble, and had attempted a work-around. The Chaplain of the Green Dick is no match for even WLC. If their god requires (space)time, it's not a god. A2 has him hung by the balls, and Egsy cannot and will not address this question.
I belive Egor's main point is best described in this


(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: