Does anybody else hate this argument?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2015, 08:51 AM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
I heard the ontological argument as being the theological equivalent of bad grammar

Celebrate Reason ‚óŹ Think For Yourself
www.theHeathensGuide.com
[Image: heathens-guide.png]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 10:07 AM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(04-02-2015 07:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 10:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm sensing some goalpost shifting above in your posts. I'm not saying that in any mean way--surely I shifted them as well with my posts.

But my point is this--rather than looking "out there" for evidence in worlds/dimensions that are unseen, perhaps we should be looking within.

Here's a thought, a fresh one. Try it on for size. You ask Jesus to prove He exists--if He does so using a natural phenomena, even a spectacular one, such as a supernova bursting in the sky in sight the moment you pray--sure, you could explain that away--but that's not my line of reasoning here. My line of reasoning is that God won't always make it rain when you ask because He has droughts and floods to do His purposes with others. Therefore, the most natural line of revelation when you pray is for God to "speak" to you directly, within. Or to appear visibly to you--which again, you can explain away. Or one can look at Bible prophecies and read the scriptures.

In other words, I think praying to heal grandpa who is sick is a dumb way to look for or reject proof. That's not the time to deconvert. Why not just ask God to "speak to you". Like I said, fresh thoughts...

Why not ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster to speak to you?

And 'phenomena' is plural; he singular is 'phenomenon'.

Thanks, I shouldn't have added "a" next to natural phenomena. Also re: the other:

Good idea... "Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have been a Christian for years. If you exist, I'd like to know. If you're as powerful and omniscient as people have said, it's hard for me to understand since there is conflicting testimony about you. My friend Chas says you're real and I see where people have invented you as a allegory. If you're real and you can show me convincing proof so that I will uniquely understand you and know you, I will certainly abandon my Christian ideals and philosophy and trust and follow you, wholeheartedly. FSM, I don't think you exist and I feel awkward speaking to you, but if you do exist, since I'm so strongly rooted in my Christian faith--and you'd know this already if you're omniscient but--personally, well, I'm going to need very good evidence from you that I can test, verify and not falsify--and I need you to do something that is so powerful I cannot ascribe it to mere coincidence. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(04-02-2015 10:07 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-02-2015 07:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Why not ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster to speak to you?

And 'phenomena' is plural; he singular is 'phenomenon'.

Thanks, I shouldn't have added "a" next to natural phenomena. Also re: the other:

Good idea... "Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have been a Christian for years. If you exist, I'd like to know. If you're as powerful and omniscient as people have said, it's hard for me to understand since there is conflicting testimony about you. My friend Chas says you're real and I see where people have invented you as a allegory. If you're real and you can show me convincing proof so that I will uniquely understand you and know you, I will certainly abandon my Christian ideals and philosophy and trust and follow you, wholeheartedly. FSM, I don't think you exist and I feel awkward speaking to you, but if you do exist, since I'm so strongly rooted in my Christian faith--and you'd know this already if you're omniscient but--personally, well, I'm going to need very good evidence from you that I can test, verify and not falsify--and I need you to do something that is so powerful I cannot ascribe it to mere coincidence. Thanks.

There is as much credible evidence for the FSM as for the Christian God. Drinking Beverage

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
04-02-2015, 12:17 PM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(03-02-2015 10:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here's a thought, a fresh one. Try it on for size. You ask Jesus to prove He exists--if He does so using a natural phenomena, even a spectacular one, such as a supernova bursting in the sky in sight the moment you pray--sure, you could explain that away--but that's not my line of reasoning here. My line of reasoning is that God won't always make it rain when you ask because He has droughts and floods to do His purposes with others. Therefore, the most natural line of revelation when you pray is for God to "speak" to you directly, within. Or to appear visibly to you--which again, you can explain away. Or one can look at Bible prophecies and read the scriptures.

No, that wasn't "fresh" at all.

By the way, "proof", by definition, would leave no doubt about what it proves. Otherwise, it would be evidence (if anything), not proof. Jesus has never provided proof of any kind or this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And, when you pray, all you do is talk yourself into believing someone is listening and then convince yourself that the resulting warm, fuzzy feeling is gawd speaking to you within. It's nothing but woo.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
05-02-2015, 12:23 AM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
Reason cannot arise from natural occurrences. It may only exist if God causes it to exist. Therefore, you cannot reasonably arrive at any position other than the existence of God. Dodgy

For the ontological perfection argument, I'd like to point out that a God who heals toddlers of leukemia would be greater than a God who didn't, and oh look, that doesn't happen, I GUESS THAT ENTIRE LINE OF REASONING IS CRAP.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
05-02-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(04-02-2015 12:17 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 10:42 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Here's a thought, a fresh one. Try it on for size. You ask Jesus to prove He exists--if He does so using a natural phenomena, even a spectacular one, such as a supernova bursting in the sky in sight the moment you pray--sure, you could explain that away--but that's not my line of reasoning here. My line of reasoning is that God won't always make it rain when you ask because He has droughts and floods to do His purposes with others. Therefore, the most natural line of revelation when you pray is for God to "speak" to you directly, within. Or to appear visibly to you--which again, you can explain away. Or one can look at Bible prophecies and read the scriptures.

No, that wasn't "fresh" at all.

By the way, "proof", by definition, would leave no doubt about what it proves. Otherwise, it would be evidence (if anything), not proof. Jesus has never provided proof of any kind or this board wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And, when you pray, all you do is talk yourself into believing someone is listening and then convince yourself that the resulting warm, fuzzy feeling is gawd speaking to you within. It's nothing but woo.

I discussed this issue with my son about ten days ago. He said, "Dad, [The Q!] if there is only air when you pray to Jesus it shouldn't matter to the atheists to try and pray since they would do it privately at home or somewhere quiet."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 02:37 PM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(05-02-2015 12:23 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Reason cannot arise from natural occurrences. It may only exist if God causes it to exist. Therefore, you cannot reasonably arrive at any position other than the existence of God. Dodgy

For the ontological perfection argument, I'd like to point out that a God who heals toddlers of leukemia would be greater than a God who didn't, and oh look, that doesn't happen, I GUESS THAT ENTIRE LINE OF REASONING IS CRAP.

You mean, rather than taking sick toddlers who die to Heaven, he would be "better" if they were home with their natural families, possibly to grow up and be lost forever in Hell as adults... we've gone over this ground before, my friend. The butterfly effect tells us we can redact god's mysteries down to "Father [God] knows best."

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(05-02-2015 02:36 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I discussed this issue with my son about ten days ago. He said, "Dad, [The Q!] if there is only air when you pray to Jesus it shouldn't matter to the atheists to try and pray since they would do it privately at home or somewhere quiet."

Except, of course, for the wasted time.Drinking Beverage

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
05-02-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(05-02-2015 02:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 12:23 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Reason cannot arise from natural occurrences. It may only exist if God causes it to exist. Therefore, you cannot reasonably arrive at any position other than the existence of God. Dodgy

For the ontological perfection argument, I'd like to point out that a God who heals toddlers of leukemia would be greater than a God who didn't, and oh look, that doesn't happen, I GUESS THAT ENTIRE LINE OF REASONING IS CRAP.

You mean, rather than taking sick toddlers who die to Heaven, he would be "better" if they were home with their natural families, possibly to grow up and be lost forever in Hell as adults... we've gone over this ground before, my friend. The butterfly effect tells us we can redact god's mysteries down to "Father [God] knows best."

That's sure some sick thinking.

And you don't seem to understand what the butterfly effect is.

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
06-02-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Does anybody else hate this argument?
(05-02-2015 04:03 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 02:37 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You mean, rather than taking sick toddlers who die to Heaven, he would be "better" if they were home with their natural families, possibly to grow up and be lost forever in Hell as adults... we've gone over this ground before, my friend. The butterfly effect tells us we can redact god's mysteries down to "Father [God] knows best."

That's sure some sick thinking.

And you don't seem to understand what the butterfly effect is.

I know what the butterfly effect is... a small occurrence... the death of a child is no small occurrence to me or anyone... but the logical extension re: grownup children is here to be seen at TTA.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: