Arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2010, 08:41 AM
Arguments
This is a thread to post any arguments for the existence of a god which you find for critique. I'll kick it off with some of the more well-known ones.

THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
PREMISE 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
PREMISE 2: The universe began to exist.
CONCLUSION 1: The universe has a cause.
CONCLUSION 2: This cause is God.

Premise One flaws:
  • Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause.
  • Other, more conventionally material items do not begin to exist, as the law of conservation of matter and energy states that they can only be rearrangements of pre-existing matter, so this premise does not follow from observation of the universe.

Conclusion One flaws:
  • This presumes the existence of causality outside of the universe. However, it is logically impossible for causality to exist outside the universe, as time is a part of the universe. Without causality, there cannot have been a cause, because there cannot have been a cause-effect relationship.

Conclusion Two flaws:
  • Even presuming the existence of causality outside the universe, inserting an intelligent cause over an unintelligent cause is special pleading, let alone inserting one intelligent cause - the Christian God - over any other.

ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY
PREMISE 1: Objective moral values exist.
PREMISE 2: Objective moral values cannot exist without God.
CONCLUSION 1: God exists.

Premise One flaws:
  • No, they don't.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
PREMISE 1: The universe exhibits qualities of design.
PREMISE 2: Design requires a designer.
CONCLUSION 1: A designer (God) exists.

Premise One flaws:
  • All "properties of design" are fully explained by natural processes with no need for deific assistance.
  • The appearance of design does not necessarily mean that something was designed.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
PREMISE 1: "God" is the greatest thing that could ever possibly exist.
PREMISE 2: God exists within the mind of humans.
PREMISE 3: Existing outside as well as inside human minds is greater than simply existing inside.
CONCLUSION 1: Because God exists within the mind, he must also exist outside it.

Entire argument flaws:
  • It's... retarded. I normally try to avoid using that word, as it's incredibly offensive to some people, but really, that's what this is. It makes me want to rip my brain out with my bare hands and beat it against the wall to purge the stupid.
  • I made a YouTube video on this which explains why the argument is so retarded. You can watch it here.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 09:05 AM
 
RE: Arguments
Right'O.
Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 03:24 PM
RE: Arguments
"The banana is proof of god."

Argument"
The banana is designed to be eaten by human. It's curved, fits in our hands, and has a color indicator or ripeness. What is more, is that when compared to a soda can, which is designed, it has some similarities, like the snap open top.

Rebuttal:
A human cannot live on a banana alone. There are lots of foods that are extremely difficult to eat, such as the coconut. There are really hardly any similarities between a banana and a soda can, not that the similarities even matter. And the best rebuttal of all, the banana, as we know them, is man-made. Original bananas are not fun to eat.

"I can feel the holy spirit inside of me."

Argument:
When at church, or a similar place/event, I can feel the holy spirit enter my body.

Rebuttal:
I feel the "Holy spirit" in me too. It's a feeling of love and belonging to something greater. You can get this feeling in many other ways, and it is purely internal.

"God healed me when I was on the brink of death."

Argument:
I(Or someone I knew) was close to death. Then a bunch of people started preying, and I got better.

Rebuttal:
Placebo effect is a possibility. And also that fancy new medicine plays a big role is recovery. And plus you wouldn't use, "I preyed really hard, but it did nothing" as evidence of god, rather just chalk it up as "God's will".

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 08:24 PM
 
RE: Arguments
(12-03-2010 08:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This is a thread to post any arguments for the existence of a god which you find for critique. I'll kick it off with some of the more well-known ones.

THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
PREMISE 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
PREMISE 2: The universe began to exist.
CONCLUSION 1: The universe has a cause.
CONCLUSION 2: This cause is God.

Premise One flaws:
  • Virtual particles are things which begin to exist with no cause.
  • Other, more conventionally material items do not begin to exist, as the law of conservation of matter and energy states that they can only be rearrangements of pre-existing matter, so this premise does not follow from observation of the universe.

Conclusion One flaws:
  • This presumes the existence of causality outside of the universe. However, it is logically impossible for causality to exist outside the universe, as time is a part of the universe. Without causality, there cannot have been a cause, because there cannot have been a cause-effect relationship.

Conclusion Two flaws:
  • Even presuming the existence of causality outside the universe, inserting an intelligent cause over an unintelligent cause is special pleading, let alone inserting one intelligent cause - the Christian God - over any other.

ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY
PREMISE 1: Objective moral values exist.
PREMISE 2: Objective moral values cannot exist without God.
CONCLUSION 1: God exists.

Premise One flaws:
  • No, they don't.

TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
PREMISE 1: The universe exhibits qualities of design.
PREMISE 2: Design requires a designer.
CONCLUSION 1: A designer (God) exists.

Premise One flaws:
  • All "properties of design" are fully explained by natural processes with no need for deific assistance.
  • The appearance of design does not necessarily mean that something was designed.

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
PREMISE 1: "God" is the greatest thing that could ever possibly exist.
PREMISE 2: God exists within the mind of humans.
PREMISE 3: Existing outside as well as inside human minds is greater than simply existing inside.
CONCLUSION 1: Because God exists within the mind, he must also exist outside it.

Entire argument flaws:
  • It's... retarded. I normally try to avoid using that word, as it's incredibly offensive to some people, but really, that's what this is. It makes me want to rip my brain out with my bare hands and beat it against the wall to purge the stupid.
  • I made a YouTube video on this which explains why the argument is so retarded. You can watch it here.

This proves my point about you, you are like a kid that learned a new trick and wants to show everyone, except everyone has seen it a 1000 times. The Kalam argument dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers. People have been debating it for years. He just learned it and says “Look at what I found”. People smarter than you and I have been debating that argument for years, as well as the other arguments.

But maybe you are smarter, why don’t you show YOUR research on virtual particles beginning to exist with no cause. Don’t commit any fallacies while you do it, I will be watching. He copies and pastes and misinterprets like most on this site. He also skips over premise 2, so show me YOUR research into an infinite past. If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past would be infinite, i.e. there would be an infinite number of past times. There cannot, however, be an infinite number of anything, and so the past cannot be infinite, and so the universe must have had a beginning. There are two types of infinites, potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are purely conceptual, and clearly both can and do exist. Mathematicians employ the concept of infinity to solve equations. We can imagine things being infinite. Actual infinites, though, arguably, cannot exist. For an actual infinite to exist it is not sufficient that we can imagine an infinite number of things; for an actual infinite to exist there must be an infinite number of things. Anyway I am sure that you will be busy dredging up others responses. THINK FOR YOURSELF!
Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 09:19 PM
 
RE: Arguments
Well then martin lets see YOUR papers into the bible.. lets see YOUR studies in Hebrew of the original bible texts. THINK FOR YOURSELF.

What a load of crap. Your are desperatly trying to denny these things not on the basis of their DATA but on the basis that Unbeliever is using them to counter one of the arguments held by theists.

Just like every other argument held by theists that they had to eventually concede.
Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2010 09:57 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Arguments
(12-03-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  This proves my point about you, you are like a kid that learned a new trick and wants to show everyone, except everyone has seen it a 1000 times.

martin, the whole "armchair psychologist" bit is wearing thin. You don't know me, and pretending that you understand me or my motivations only makes you look like an arrogant idiot.
In any case, I don't care how many times that this has been discussed, or by whom, or for how long, or where it originated. I started this thread as a resource for the members of this site. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it, but baseless flaming is completely uncalled for.

Quote:The Kalam argument dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers. People have been debating it for years. He just learned it and says “Look at what I found”.

Actually, martin, I've known about these arguments for years. I've argued against them for years. And, again, simply saying "Oh, it's been done before" or "it's boring" is not a valid objection. If you want to object to my debunking of these arguments, do so on a sound logical basis. Don't just troll.

Quote:But maybe you are smarter, why don’t you show YOUR research on virtual particles beginning to exist with no cause.

Do you want original research from me? If so, you're not going to get it, because I'm not a quantum physicist.
However, if you want actual studies, then I would be happy to provide them...

Quote:Don’t commit any fallacies while you do it, I will be watching.

...except that you said this. I can see already that you're going to bring up your "fallacy of the crucial experiment".

EDIT: Also, martin, where exactly did you come up with this fallacy? There is only one site that I can find of which lists a definition for it: this one, which is not exactly the most reputable source.

Quote:He copies and pastes and misinterprets like most on this site.

Show a single instance of this or stop saying it. As of yet, you have failed to do so. Every time that you have accused me of this, I have proven you wrong.

Quote:He also skips over premise 2, so show me YOUR research into an infinite past.

I don't defend the "infinite past" idea. Why should I?

I also notice that you fail to address the critical part of my rebuttal. While I admit that I may be wrong on virtual particles - may be, mind you, I require evidence that I am - as I am not a quantum physicist, the central point of my rebuttal remains untouched. There is no time, and therefore no causality, outside of the universe. Because there is no causality, the universe cannot have a cause.

While you come up with a rebuttal to that, martin, I'll be doing more research on virtual particles. But I advise you to stop your constant trolling and personal attacks.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 10:05 PM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2010 10:21 PM by ashley.hunt60.)
RE: Arguments
(12-03-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  This proves my point about you, you are like a kid that learned a new trick and wants to show everyone, except everyone has seen it a 1000 times.

I don't like sticking my nose into other people's affairs. But, really Martin, you have to stop the personal attacks. Every time you go off about how juvenile Unbeliever is, it does nothing to help you. You doesn't help refute his points, it doesn't make him seem juvenile (In fact it makes him seem mature when he doesn't revert to ad hominid attacks in response), and it certainly doesn't help your image.

OH, and you have talked about "Until we kick you off". We can't kick you off for disagreeing with us. If you get pretty rude for a while, then you can be kicked off, but you won't be kicked of for opposing us. It also doesn't seem like you can be chased off, so you're here for as long as you want.

I don't believe Jesus is the son of God until I see the long form birth certificate!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 10:10 PM
 
RE: Arguments
(12-03-2010 09:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(12-03-2010 08:24 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  This proves my point about you, you are like a kid that learned a new trick and wants to show everyone, except everyone has seen it a 1000 times.

martin, the whole "armchair psychologist" bit is wearing thin. You don't know me, and pretending that you understand me or my motivations only makes you look like an arrogant idiot.
In any case, I don't care how many times that this has been discussed, or by whom, or for how long, or where it originated. I started this thread as a resource for the members of this site. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it, but baseless flaming is completely uncalled for.

Quote:The Kalam argument dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers. People have been debating it for years. He just learned it and says “Look at what I found”.

Actually, martin, I've known about these arguments for years. I've argued against them for years. And, again, simply saying "Oh, it's been done before" or "it's boring" is not a valid objection. If you want to object to my debunking of these arguments, do so on a sound logical basis. Don't just troll.

Quote:But maybe you are smarter, why don’t you show YOUR research on virtual particles beginning to exist with no cause.

Do you want original research from me? If so, you're not going to get it, because I'm not a quantum physicist.
However, if you want actual studies, then I would be happy to provide them...

Quote:Don’t commit any fallacies while you do it, I will be watching.

...except that you said this. I can see already that you're going to bring up your "fallacy of the crucial experiment".

EDIT: Also, martin, where exactly did you come up with this fallacy? There is only one site that I can find of which lists a definition for it: this one, which is not exactly the most reputable source.

Quote:He copies and pastes and misinterprets like most on this site.

Show a single instance of this or stop saying it. As of yet, you have failed to do so. Every time that you have accused me of this, I have proven you wrong.

Quote:He also skips over premise 2, so show me YOUR research into an infinite past.

I don't defend the "infinite past" idea. Why should I?

I also notice that you fail to address the critical part of my rebuttal. While I admit that I may be wrong on virtual particles - may be, mind you, I require evidence that I am - as I am not a quantum physicist, the central point of my rebuttal remains untouched. There is no time, and therefore no causality, outside of the universe. Because there is no causality, the universe cannot have a cause.

While you come up with a rebuttal to that, martin, I'll be doing more research on virtual particles. But I advise you to stop your constant trolling and personal attacks.

Your 18! how many years have you been debating this? I did object to your rebuttal and its not yours, its the one that has been given for years. You call me out for argument from authority all the time, so how are going to prove your point if you don't appeal from authority? If I would have posted your reply you have laughed me out of this place, I am calling him out for who he is, he can fool you people but he can't fool me. I am the only one who is stood up for his "arguments" I will be here until they kick me off. Don't know that website but is just as good as any other ones you can Google. Here is a hint Einstein. I just googled it, the fallacy of the crucial experiment it comes up everywhere.
Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 10:21 PM
RE: Arguments
"I will be here until they kick me off. "

Sure hope thats soon. You are exhausting. Nothing but a typical troll. Having someone on this site to argue the theist side of things is great, but you are nothing but a complainer. You avoid answering direct questions when you have no answer, and worse, you give answers that are completely irrelevant. And the worst offense of all, you personally attack people that prove you wrong, and attempt to make them look bad. (when really, all you are doing is making yourself look bad.)

Either grow up, and show some maturity, like that shown by the person you accuse of being juvenile, or go away.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2010, 10:24 PM
RE: Arguments
(12-03-2010 10:10 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  Your 18! how many years have you been debating this?

Three, but it's irrelevant anyway.

Quote:I did object to your rebuttal and its not yours , its the one that has been given for years.

It may be the one that has been used for years, but I came to the rebuttal on my own. Whether or not someone came up with it before me is entirely irrelevant. Stop trying to smokescreen your way out of this. If you have a legitimate rebuttal, present it. Don't just keep making baseless insults.

Quote:You call me out for argument from authority all the time, so how are going to prove your point if you don't appeal from authority?

What? This sentence doesn't make any sense. The two halves of it have nothing to do with each other.

Quote:If I would have posted your reply you have laughed me out of this place, I am calling him out for who he is, he can fool you people but he can't fool me. I am the only one who is stood up for his "arguments" I will be here until they kick me off.

No one's going to kick you off, martin. At least, not for merely being a theist. If you continue with this stream of insults, though, you might end up banned.
(12-03-2010 10:21 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  "I will be here until they kick me off. "

Sure hope thats soon. You are exhausting. Nothing but a typical troll.

Actually, I hope that he isn't banned. Even if he does spew insults, it's good to have someone around that we can discuss things with. And the site wouldn't be half as active without him.
Also, I don't even know if there are any mods that monitor this site...

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: