Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 04:11 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I agree. The first cause was not a physical being.

A flying immaterial being in the shape of spaghetti.

You're joking right?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:12 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:11 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  A flying immaterial being in the shape of spaghetti.

You're joking right?

I'm as serious as you are and I bring exactly as much evidence to the table as you do.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:14 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:11 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You're joking right?

I'm as serious as you are and I bring exactly as much evidence to the table as you do.

I'm bringing an argument for a coherent idea. You brought no argument for an incoherent idea. Obviously TFSM is a joke construction, but it fails to make any fatal blows to cosmological arguments.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:15 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:14 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I'm as serious as you are and I bring exactly as much evidence to the table as you do.

I'm bringing an argument for a coherent idea. You brought no argument for an incoherent idea. Obviously TFSM is a joke construction, but it fails to make any fatal blows to cosmological arguments.

It illustrates that you are just making shit up with no evidence.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
02-02-2017, 04:15 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  An argument is not evidence - it is just an argument.

And Craig is a buffoon in debate. He just spouts his dreary arguments and does not engage his opponent.

An argument for the existence of something can be used as evidence for it. Scientific evidence only gets you so far. Science can't be applied to everything.

You have gone off the rails. The scientific process can be applied to everything, you are either ignorant or petulant. Maybe both.

Since The Inquisition is arguing for TFSM I’m using it as evidence for it’s existence.

“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
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
02-02-2017, 04:18 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:14 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:12 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I'm as serious as you are and I bring exactly as much evidence to the table as you do.

I'm bringing an argument for a coherent idea. You brought no argument for an incoherent idea. Obviously TFSM is a joke construction, but it fails to make any fatal blows to cosmological arguments.

Coherent idea...

[Image: i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means.jpg]

“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
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
02-02-2017, 04:32 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:15 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:14 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm bringing an argument for a coherent idea. You brought no argument for an incoherent idea. Obviously TFSM is a joke construction, but it fails to make any fatal blows to cosmological arguments.

It illustrates that you are just making shit up with no evidence.

It illustrates that you are. Meanwhile I have an actual argument for the necessary being.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:33 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:18 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:14 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'm bringing an argument for a coherent idea. You brought no argument for an incoherent idea. Obviously TFSM is a joke construction, but it fails to make any fatal blows to cosmological arguments.

Coherent idea...

[Image: i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means.jpg]

Coherent means it doesn't contradict itself or commit logical fallacy. His argument contradicted itself. Mine neither contradicts itself nor commits fallacy. My position is coherent.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:37 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:15 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  You have gone off the rails. The scientific process can be applied to everything, you are either ignorant or petulant. Maybe both.

This is obviously false. You have to justify the scientific method with something other than science to even begin. The scientific method is a tool for empiricist analysis. It is not applicable to everything. Then you resort to ad hominem. I have no intention of refuting non-arguments.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:42 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 04:10 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  An argument is not evidence - it is just an argument.

And Craig is a buffoon in debate. He just spouts his dreary arguments and does not engage his opponent.

An argument for the existence of something can be used as evidence for it.

Not unless it is based on evidence. Without evidence, it is just rhetoric.

Quote:Scientific evidence only gets you so far. Science can't be applied to everything.

Questions of the origin and nature of the universe are precisely questions of science, and the answers will require evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: