Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 04:30 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  It seems clear that you can't see how bad your metaphor is.

I actually liked the analogy for the simple fact that my goal was to prove that correlation does not entail causation, and in the analogy I gave, the correlation that is shared between a remote control and a television clearly has nothing to do with the origin of each, as each entity depends on an independent source that is external from each, despite the correlation.

If that was really your point, then you weren't responding to what was said. unfogged was talking about mapping, not correlation.

Quote:Apparently, you didn't think that was good enough, so you made a "counter-analogy" which also proved my point...as nothing you said in your metaphor went AGAINST anything that I said or implied...yet you seem so sure that you are doing what? Proving my point? I appreciate the assistance, but it is not needed.

I don't believe that was your point.

Quote:
(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's called 'taking a metaphor too far'. I didn't say it was software, I offered it as a metaphor.
Do you not understand the purpose of a metaphor? It does not stand in the place of something, it is a rhetorical aid to understanding that something.

I just asked a question, if you are going to use an analogy, don't get upset when someone asks you a question about it. You said the mind is the software and the brain is the hardware, which is completely irrelevant because that is not telling me where did the software come from in the first place.

Where it came from was not even referred to in the post.

Quote:Microsoft is the software on most computers, and the origins of the computers has nothing to do with the origins of Microsoft. So still, my questions remained unanswered and all you can do is offer these piss poor objections as has been the case.

My objections were (and are) to your poor argumentation.

Quote:
(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  The mind evolved along with the brain.

That is the theory, what I'd like is evidence for the theory. Anyone can make a claim...I claim Goddidit, and you claim Evolutiondidit...if evolution is science, and science is supposed to be based on observation and repeated experient, then I'd like you to conduct an experiment at which you can observe the brain itself producing consicousness.

Until you can do that, then you have no empirical basis for any of it. Just...talk.

The difference is we have evidence for evolution. You have none for god.

Quote:
(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Consciousness is an emergent property of the functioning of the brain. No intelligent designer needed.

Right.."emergent"...explain to me how inanimate matter could be the emergent of consciousness...I will wait.

The same way all other emergent properties of life from inanimate matter come about - through interactions of the parts.

Quote:
(06-02-2015 03:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Pro tip: The honest answer of "I don't know" is far better than the dishonest, made-up answer.

If you are admitting that you don't know I shouldn't expect any answers to my questions...so I don't expect to hear too much from you on this matter...if you don't know..then any explanation from someone that doesn't know is quite meaningless.

You can expect answers from me when you make poor arguments.

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
07-02-2015, 09:16 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(06-02-2015 10:18 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Injury to the brain is a disconnnect between the mind and the brain, and while physical damage to the brain may affect the mind, once the mind leaves the brain (me leaving my vehicle), the mind now works properly.

Please provide evidence of that assertion.

(03-02-2015 08:49 PM)unfogged Wrote:  No, it is simply a recognition that MN has proven to be a reliable way to learn about the universe.

Ok, and so is philosophy...philosophy is a reliable way to determine the truth value of a proposition. Science is not the only reliable way.[/quote]

Philosophy is not a reliable way to determine the truth value of a proposition. It is useful in deciding what and how to investigate but you can't determine truth without empirical evidence.

Quote:Give me a scientific reason how a physical entity can be the origins of a mental entity...and while you are at it, give me a scientific reason how the universe could have came from a state of nothingness, and if those things are to easy for you, give me a scientific explanation of how life could have arisen from nonliving materials.

I don't accept the idea that there is a "mental entity" in the way you appear to mean it. The evidence is consistent with the mind being the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain and there is simply no evidence that that pattern can be maintained when the brain dies.

As for the universe, you keep missing the point that the god-of-the-gaps argument is not compelling.

Quote:I defend Christian theism...and the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus is more than enough to distinguish Christianity from Greek mythology or any other religions or faith based systems.

Except that there is no evidence of any resurrection for Jesus that is any more compelling than resurrections of other figures in mythology.

Quote:According to modern cosmology, our universe began to exist...our universe consists of all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). If STEM began to exist, then it logically follows that whatever gave it its beginning could not exist be a product of STEM....and the only name in the dictionary, encyclopedia, human language that has the attributes of producing this kind of effect is....GOD.

Yep, we don't understand something so god... it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Quote:You may not like the end result, but until you can explain using any preferred method of knowledge you'd like, of how such an effect could have arisen and by what cause, then you have no argument.

My liking or not liking a conclusion is meaningless. The time to believe something is when there is actual evidence FOR it, not just a lack of any other answer. I'm not making an argument for how the universe as we know it began, I'm saying I don't know. You are making an argument that it had to be god and that is based on your being unable to admit that you don't know either.

Quote:I find it amazing that you are asking for a naturalistic explanation, when on Krauss' view, there WAS no naturalistic explanation, the universe just popped in to being uncaused out of nothing...

Krauss is saying that that IS natural and expected. I don't know if that makes sense or not because I know enough about the argument to know that common, everyday understanding of how things work doesn't apply at very small and very large scales. I am not arrogant enough to think that my understanding is sufficient to determine that Krauss, and others, are either right or wrong.

Quote:It isn't god of the gaps argumentation, because I do not use god to fill the gaps based on what I don't know...but I use god to fill in the gaps based on what I DO know.

Laughat

Quote:Right!! Exactly...simultaneous causation. When God created the universe, that was the first change EVER in reality, thus; when God began to create, that was simulatenous with the first moment in time....although I am not sure where you get that this would mean that we don't need him. Lost me there.

Think about what you are saying. There existed an all powerful, highly complex, highly intelligent entity in a state of complete timelessness. Then, for some uncaused reason, that entity created time and the material universe which had to be created because it couldn't have existed eternally even though the entity existed eternally... it's contradictory. The whole "had to be a mind" canard falls flat because a mind implies mental activity and that requires change which requires time. Your god had to be completely static prior to this moment of creation. You complain that Krauss' argument is illogical but supply an alternative that makes even less sense.

Where did this highly complex pattern that was god come from? That could exist eternally and timelessly? You're starting with a huge degree of complexity and that's not as likely as suggestions that start with something extremely simple.

Quote:The universe could not have existed eternally because that would entail infinite duration, as mentioned above...and it couldn't have existed timelessly because the universe is always in a constant state of change/motion, and change/emotion requires time.

Yet you believe that this god initiated creation of time without having time in which to initiate the change. If you can't have change/emotion without time then god could never have created anything but would be doomed to remain static and timeless (I'd say forever but there is no forever without time -- we can't even talk about this clearly because the concepts are too far outside our experience which is why I hold that you are not justified in assuming that you know what happened).

Quote:"I don't know" just won't cut it.

I know you don't like that idea but the only other option is to pretend that you have an answer. You don't know, you believe.

Quote:Correction: I label everything that science is incapable of ever explaining (such as the questions of origins) to God, which is ultimately me just appealing to the best explanation. The God Hypothesis has more explanatory value than naturalism.

It isn't the best explanation, it's not an explanation at all. Any answer that can be used to explain everything explains nothing. Saying "god" is no different than saying "magic".

Quote:So just for the record, you do believe the universe had a beginning, right?

I believe that the evidence shows that the universe as we see it can be traced back to the big bang. That can be called the beginning for general purposes but I don't believe that we know anything about how or why that happened. Was the universe created ex nihilo? Did the energy exist in some other form that transitioned to what we see based on conditions in an earlier universe? Is there a multiverse that spawns new universes? I don't know. I don't feel a need to fill in an answer until we have more evidence and better hypotheses.

[No, it couldn't...because the universe is always in a state of change, which requires time.[/quote]

Perhaps the only question is why time started and the universe existed in a timeless state just like your supposed god did. That would certainly be simpler than assuming a highly complex god pattern and then time started. I do not see any reason to suppose such a high degree of complexity that just existed without needing to be created itself.

Quote:How about just flat out admitting that the concept is absurd? That would be a start. You don't have to be a certified physicist to know when someone is talking nonsense.

Quantum mechanics seem absurd to me and yet that appears to be how things actually work. Relativity seems absurd to me and yet I benefit from technology that uses the concepts. As I said, I'm not arrogant enough to think that what seems absurd to me might not actually be true.

Even a god MIGHT be true even though that is even more absurd to me than anything Krauss has proposed. I just need evidence for something before I can consider believing it.

Quote:Jesus never said he would return in 2,000 years, did he?

No, according to the story he said he'd return before the generation of the time had died out. Whoops.

Quote:I do try.

No, you've latched on to the god idea as an answer and stopped looking for anything else.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
07-02-2015, 11:02 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Please provide evidence of that assertion.

If you have a pet dog, and you went to bed at night with your dog sleeping on the floor, and when you woke up you find yourself inside the body of the dog, yet, your human body is still laying in the bed...are you the dog, or are you the body on the bed??

If you are the body on the bed, then you can't be inside the dog, because you can't be two places at one time...if you are inside the dog, then you can't be the body.

If your sister came into your room and tried to wake you up for school, and you are able to say "I am right here" as you are inside the dog's body...that would mean that "you" and your mind are the same thing. Where ever your mind/consciousness goes, you go.

This is a direct distinction from the mind and the body.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Philosophy is not a reliable way to determine the truth value of a proposition.

That is just flat out willful ignorance.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  It is useful in deciding what and how to investigate but you can't determine truth without empirical evidence.

Ok, so please use empirical evidence to determine the truth value of the statement "you can't determine truth without empirical evidence"...please demonstrate how you can use empirical evidence to determine the truth value of that proposition.

Can you do that for me? I will wait.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't accept the idea that there is a "mental entity" in the way you appear to mean it. The evidence is consistent with the mind being the pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain and there is simply no evidence that that pattern can be maintained when the brain dies.

First off, I already explained why the brain and the mind are not identical, based on the law of identity...and I haven't gotten a response from you in that regard, so to continue to maintain that there is no evidence is being disingenuous. Second, in that case, there is also no evidence that the brain is the origin of consciousness either. Third, if humans are nothing but bunch of electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then if someone goes on a mass killing spree, they shouldn't be held accountable, because after all, he was only acting according to the electro-chemical reactions in their brain.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  As for the universe, you keep missing the point that the god-of-the-gaps argument is not compelling.

Again, when I get to a point where science is not adequately equipped to answer a question, then I have ever right to find my answers elsewhere, and if God happens to fit the bill, then it is what it is.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Except that there is no evidence of any resurrection for Jesus that is any more compelling than resurrections of other figures in mythology.

That is your opinion...but in my opinion there is.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Yep, we don't understand something so god... it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Rhetoric with no substance whatsoever.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  My liking or not liking a conclusion is meaningless. The time to believe something is when there is actual evidence FOR it, not just a lack of any other answer. I'm not making an argument for how the universe as we know it began, I'm saying I don't know. You are making an argument that it had to be god and that is based on your being unable to admit that you don't know either.

I am saying that the universe began to exist, human consciousness began to exist, and human life began to exist...and based on the background knowledge I have, the God Hypothesis is the best explanation as to why those things began to exist. Plain and simple...nothing more, nothing less.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Krauss is saying that that IS natural and expected.

Then it should be explained by natural law, and a universe popping in to existence out of nothing is NOT explained by natural law.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I don't know if that makes sense or not because I know enough about the argument to know that common, everyday understanding of how things work doesn't apply at very small and very large scales. I am not arrogant enough to think that my understanding is sufficient to determine that Krauss, and others, are either right or wrong.

Well, Krauss has already received his fair share of criticism from his colleagues on his nonsensical thinking and his deliberate equivocations.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Think about what you are saying. There existed an all powerful, highly complex, highly intelligent entity in a state of complete timelessness. Then, for some uncaused reason, that entity created time and the material universe which had to be created because it couldn't have existed eternally even though the entity existed eternally... it's contradictory.

First off, who is saying that God created for some "uncaused reason". Does that even make sense? Second, you are equivocating the word "eternity", which can either mean "through enduring time", or "timelessness (without time)". We are saying that God existed eternally (without time), while you are postulating a universe existing eternally "throughout time". The latter view is demonstrably false.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The whole "had to be a mind" canard falls flat because a mind implies mental activity and that requires change which requires time. Your god had to be completely static prior to this moment of creation.

Right, God was completely static. We can conceive of a man sitting eternally on a chair, never moving...perfectly still. There is no time involved here, because there was never a moment prior to the man sitting, so there couldn't have been moments AFTER the man sat...the man is in a timeless state...but if the man BEGINS to stand, then time is created, because that moment of motion was a change (the first change) in time. That is perfectly conceivable.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You complain that Krauss' argument is illogical but supply an alternative that makes even less sense.

My view is at least conceivable. Krauss' view isn't....can you conceive of something popping in to being out of nothing? Of course you can...but can you conceive of something popping out of nothing based on natural law? No you can't, because it is absurd, and absurdities cannot be conceived.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Where did this highly complex pattern that was god come from? That could exist eternally and timelessly?

God is a metaphysically necessary being, so to ask where God came from would be like asking where did the number 1 come from.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  You're starting with a huge degree of complexity and that's not as likely as suggestions that start with something extremely simple.

I don't think popping in to being uncaused out of nothing can be considered "extremely simple"....but hey, that's just me.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Yet you believe that this god initiated creation of time without having time in which to initiate the change. If you can't have change/emotion without time then god could never have created anything but would be doomed to remain static and timeless (I'd say forever but there is no forever without time -- we can't even talk about this clearly because the concepts are too far outside our experience which is why I hold that you are not justified in assuming that you know what happened).

Remember, we were talking about simultaneous causation...which would mean that the first change/motion/time, all three happened simultaneously, so it was actually in time that it occurred. Or think about it this way...

You can't have:

Matter without space: Because matter is physical, and physical objects occupy space.

Space without matter: Because you can't logically start off with space with no matter, and then suddenly have matter, because where would the matter come if it wasn't originally there?

Matter without time: A universe (like our own) that is constantly in a state of change must exist in a temporal realm, because change requires time.

Space without time: You could have space without time, but there is no need to postulate this, because it doesn't reflect reality (due to matter)

So based on what we know, all physical STEM had to come into existence simultaneously, as you can't have one without the other...and this is exactly what the big bang theory implies, that all STEM came into existence at some point in the FINITE past...so you can use philosophical thought to corroborate an empirical observation...which is what I just did.

I just dropped some gems on you, my friend...don't worry, no charge Thumbsup

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  It isn't the best explanation, it's not an explanation at all. Any answer that can be used to explain everything explains nothing. Saying "god" is no different than saying "magic".

Saying that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least we can conclude that the magician caused the rabbit to appear. On Krauss' view, there is no magician, or hat...the rabbit just pops in to being uncaused out of nothing. That is worse than magic Laughat

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  I believe that the evidence shows that the universe as we see it can be traced back to the big bang. That can be called the beginning for general purposes but I don't believe that we know anything about how or why that happened. Was the universe created ex nihilo? Did the energy exist in some other form that transitioned to what we see based on conditions in an earlier universe? Is there a multiverse that spawns new universes? I don't know. I don't feel a need to fill in an answer until we have more evidence and better hypotheses.

Well, we have evidence that reality cannot be extended back to past infinity. A timeless cause is necessary.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Perhaps the only question is why time started and the universe existed in a timeless state just like your supposed god did. That would certainly be simpler than assuming a highly complex god pattern and then time started. I do not see any reason to suppose such a high degree of complexity that just existed without needing to be created itself.

The universe could not have existed timelessly, because it was always in a state of change.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Quantum mechanics seem absurd to me and yet that appears to be how things actually work. Relativity seems absurd to me and yet I benefit from technology that uses the concepts. As I said, I'm not arrogant enough to think that what seems absurd to me might not actually be true.

Wow, we've come a long way in human intellect. We've come so far that believing in nonsense is actually accepted. Laugh out load

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Even a god MIGHT be true even though that is even more absurd to me than anything Krauss has proposed. I just need evidence for something before I can consider believing it.

Me too.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No, according to the story he said he'd return before the generation of the time had died out. Whoops.

You are mistakenly assuming that he was talking about the generation of the current time...he was talking about the generation that is living when the things had occurred...he said "this generation", meaning the generation that is living during the times of the tribulations.

Wait a minute, a unbeliever taking the bible out of context??? Nooooo...that never happens. Laugh out load

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No, you've latched on to the god idea as an answer and stopped looking for anything else.

And you are waiting for science to fill in the gaps for you, and the God Hypothesis isn't even considered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2015, 01:51 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-02-2015 11:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Please provide evidence of that assertion.

If you have a pet dog....

The assertion you made was "Injury to the brain is a disconnnect between the mind and the brain, and while physical damage to the brain may affect the mind, once the mind leaves the brain (me leaving my vehicle), the mind now works properly."

I am asking for evidence that the mind is not affected by damage to the brain.

Quote:
(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Philosophy is not a reliable way to determine the truth value of a proposition.

That is just flat out willful ignorance.

Philosophy has value, but you can not determine what is and is not real without actual comparison to reality. If you aren't using reality as the yardstick then you aren't measuring anything real.


Quote:First off, I already explained why the brain and the mind are not identical, based on the law of identity...and I haven't gotten a response from you in that regard, so to continue to maintain that there is no evidence is being disingenuous.

Where have I said that the brain and the mind are identical? The mind is a product of the brain and all evidence leads to the conclusion that the brain can exist without a mind but the mind can't exist without a brain.

Quote:Second, in that case, there is also no evidence that the brain is the origin of consciousness either.

Except that there is no conciousness to be found anywhere without an active brain and no hypothesis that explains how a mind could possibly exist without a brain. If you believe it is reasonable to think that a mind can exist without a physical brain of some kind to generate it please suggest an experiment that could show that.

Quote:Third, if humans are nothing but bunch of electro-chemical reactions in the brain, then if someone goes on a mass killing spree, they shouldn't be held accountable, because after all, he was only acting according to the electro-chemical reactions in their brain.

You are conflating multiple concepts there. In many ways that is true but it isn't that the individual can't be held accountable. Read some Daniel Dennett on the subject of free will; he explains it better than I can.

The bottom line is that there is a difference for me between what is the physical reality of the universe and how we should act in order to minimize pain and maximize happiness.

Quote:
(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  As for the universe, you keep missing the point that the god-of-the-gaps argument is not compelling.

Again, when I get to a point where science is not adequately equipped to answer a question, then I have ever right to find my answers elsewhere, and if God happens to fit the bill, then it is what it is.

Finding answers elsewhere is fine. Making up bullshit to think you have answers when you don't is not.

Quote:
(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Except that there is no evidence of any resurrection for Jesus that is any more compelling than resurrections of other figures in mythology.

That is your opinion...but in my opinion there is.

Please provide it. Paul doesn't provide any definite claims of a physical Jesus at all. Mark mentions a missing body and that was written 30 or more years after the supposed events. The other gospels are retellings of Mark written even later. They are essentially all fan fiction that can't be matched to any actual evidence.


Quote:I am saying that the universe began to exist, human consciousness began to exist, and human life began to exist...and based on the background knowledge I have, the God Hypothesis is the best explanation as to why those things began to exist. Plain and simple...nothing more, nothing less.

I realize that. I just don't understand it. There is absolutely no compelling evidence for a god that I can find. There is plenty I don't understand but god doesn't explain it, it just gives a shorter word for "I don't know".

Quote:
(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Krauss is saying that that IS natural and expected.

Then it should be explained by natural law, and a universe popping in to existence out of nothing is NOT explained by natural law.

They are working on it. Maybe someday we'll understand, maybe we never will. That doesn't give us the freedom to make up something in the meantime.

Quote:Well, Krauss has already received his fair share of criticism from his colleagues on his nonsensical thinking and his deliberate equivocations.

Good. That's how science works. Hypotheses are subjected to intense scrutiny and if his doesn't stand up then it will be modified or discarded. That is how we advance, not by just saying "this is hard, god is simple, I'll go with god until I get a better answer".

Quote:First off, who is saying that God created for some "uncaused reason".

If god existed in a timeless state then he could not have decided to create the universe because the act of considering requires change which requires time. If creation just happened with prior decision then it was an uncaused event. We're back to the same problems but with the added notion of a complex god existing in some sort of stasis. It is ludicrous.

Quote:Does that even make sense? Second, you are equivocating the word "eternity", which can either mean "through enduring time", or "timelessness (without time)". We are saying that God existed eternally (without time), while you are postulating a universe existing eternally "throughout time". The latter view is demonstrably false.

I may not have been clear. I am saying that whatever kind of timeless state your god was in, the universe could have been in that same state.

Quote:Right, God was completely static.

Which means that he could not think because thoughts imply change but static means absolutely no activity. Whatever triggered the creation of the universe could not have been an intentional act of a god that was in a static state.

Quote:My view is at least conceivable. Krauss' view isn't....can you conceive of something popping in to being out of nothing? Of course you can...but can you conceive of something popping out of nothing based on natural law? No you can't, because it is absurd, and absurdities cannot be conceived.

You can't conceive it. Krauss thinks he can. I haven't studied it enough to decide if it makes sense to me or not.

Quote:God is a metaphysically necessary being, so to ask where God came from would be like asking where did the number 1 come from.

There is no metaphysically necessary being. That's just William Lane Craig doubletalk.

Quote:I just dropped some gems on you, my friend...don't worry, no charge Thumbsup

What you dropped was more unsubstantiated bullshit based on your own limited understanding of physics, cosmology, etc...

Quote:The universe could not have existed timelessly, because it was always in a state of change.

God could not have existed timelessly because a mind is always in a state of change. I'll wait for the special pleading again...

Quote:Wow, we've come a long way in human intellect. We've come so far that believing in nonsense is actually accepted. Laugh out load

Yep, religious beliefs have been accepted for thousands of years. It is sad, isn't it.

(07-02-2015 09:16 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No, according to the story he said he'd return before the generation of the time had died out. Whoops.

Quote:Wait a minute, a unbeliever taking the bible out of context??? Nooooo...that never happens. Laugh out load

Wait a minute, a believer twisting the literal words of the bible to mean something very different when it is clear that the text is just wrong??? Noooooo...that never happens.
Facepalm

Quote:And you are waiting for science to fill in the gaps for you, and the God Hypothesis isn't even considered.

I have considered it. Often. I have found nothing about it that actually provides any answers but have found much that is obvious nonsense. On the whole, science has proven itself over and over and earned the chance to continue doing so. Religion has also proven itself, but only as a complete fraud.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
01-04-2015, 06:11 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Recently, I was re-watching QualiaSoup's The burden of proof video when at one point several common arguments for god appeared on the screen and I realized I didn't know a single one off the top of my head. In order to better educate myself and others who may not know them as well, I'll try to explain some of the common debate arguments and how each is countered. Please add any arguments you feel us under-informed people should know about.
Good job, but I think you left one out: Pascal's wager. In the crudest form, this says that if you believe in God and there isn't one, no problem (i.e., no loss of heaven or pains of hell). But if you don't believe in one and there is one, BIG PROBLEM!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-06-2015, 10:42 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Based upon your assertions COTW, you should be able to provide an example of a conscious "switching vehicles".

I know they did it in X-Men but Professor Xavier had abilities that don't exist outside of imagination.

Science doesn't have the origins of evolving consciousness but you don't have the slightest clue on about the brain and its processes. And its a damn shame because you're using your brain and its amazing capabilities to give credit to an imaginary being that was created by your brain's less evolved predecessor.

You're just a great example of what happens when you start with a conclusion and attempt to mold evidence and reality to prove said conclusion.

You're just strolling down the road naked telling everyone you pass you got a 12 inch cock while they clearly see your 2 inches of evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 02:10 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
At what point does the argument - specifically regarding the perception of talent - become valid in the direct question; who gave you your abilities to do anything at all? You could have been born blind... Let alone whatever else your mind can conceive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 06:23 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(17-09-2015 02:10 AM)ahp2015 Wrote:  At what point does the argument - specifically regarding the perception of talent - become valid in the direct question; who gave you your abilities to do anything at all? You could have been born blind... Let alone whatever else your mind can conceive.

Why do you ask who? By framing the question that way you are assuming your conclusion. When you start with the assumption that a god exists then it is all too easy to use it as the answer for every difficult question. When you start with the questions and seek actual evidence you never seem to find anything that actually points to a god.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
17-09-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(17-09-2015 02:10 AM)ahp2015 Wrote:  At what point does the argument - specifically regarding the perception of talent - become valid in the direct question; who gave you your abilities to do anything at all? You could have been born blind... Let alone whatever else your mind can conceive.

That isn't an argument. That's hardly a coherent question.

Regardless, the question assumes that someone gave us those capabilities. This has not been established.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2015, 06:18 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(07-02-2015 11:02 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  God is a metaphysically necessary being, so to ask where God came from would be like asking where did the number 1 come from.
so, why is God metaphysically necessary being?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: