Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 16 Votes - 1.56 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-03-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
There really isn't much to discuss.

This topic has been beaten to death.

You can't subject God to a finite set of rules if He is infinite.

In doing this, you create a conundrum in which there is an impasse between theist and atheist. No side can win; nor gain any advantage in the discussion because each side of the argument are so stalwart in their own right.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
I think the common courtesy is that since you don't rate yourself, you don't rate your own threads.

You don't care for this quote, and yet...you post it. As if it has any relevancy to anything posted by you before.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 03:53 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(06-03-2013 03:33 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  There really isn't much to discuss.

This topic has been beaten to death.

You can't subject God to a finite set of rules if He is infinite.

In doing this, you create a conundrum in which there is an impasse between theist and atheist. No side can win; nor gain any advantage in the discussion because each side of the argument are so stalwart in their own right.
You also can't prove the existence of something when you say it can't be proven. I mean, PJ defeats himself by saying there can be no demonstrable evidence or logical argument for the existence of god. But, for some reason, there exists biblical prophecies and miracles (apparently Dodgy )

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:37 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Precisely, two different standards of evidence are being presented: one based on logic/empirical observations and one based on faith.

Therefore:
1. The theist is incapable of meeting the burden of proof, making logically constructed arguments for proof unnecessary for their own beliefs, but therefore eliminating the possibility of convincing anybody else of their claims. If the theist only cares about the belief for their own personal investment and doesn't give a shit what others think or believe, this probably won't concern them. If they intended to use this as a step in conquering a debate about the existence of their God by means of logical proof, they just shot themselves in the foot.
2. The atheist will continue to lack a belief in god since the burden of proof has not been met, which is most likely why they are atheists in the first place.

Since the philosophic burden of proof is not expected to be met by either party (with one party incapable of fulfilling it and the other party rejecting the former's claims until the burden can be met), the conversation is bound to go nowhere. There is nothing left to discuss, since once one has affirmed faith as the means of reaching their conclusion, it has already been admitted that there is no deducible pathway to reach that conclusion by adhering to logical principles.

Outcome: Theists are on the shit-end of the stick when it comes to logical principles and their arguments for the existence of God are logically invalid, which is not the same as saying they can't/don't exist, but really isn't much better from a debate standpoint.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:46 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(06-03-2013 03:37 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Outcome: Theists are on the shit-end of the stick when it comes to logical principles and their arguments for the existence of God are logically invalid, which is not the same as saying they can't/don't exist, but really isn't much better from a debate standpoint.
Well... only if the theist doesn't acknowledge this. If the theist acknowledges this, and in fact, give Biblical support to the claim (that belief in God = faith), then the atheist doesn't have much ammo.

I know this has been a frustration with some when discussion God with me. I'm fully aware that God can't be proved empirically; likewise, I also acknowledge that scripture teaches us that those that believe in God have faith - therefore, believing in God = faith.

This leads to a dead end discussion.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2013, 03:57 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(06-03-2013 03:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I mean, PJ defeats himself by saying there can be demonstrable evidence or logical argument for the existence of god.
I doubt that he's going to admit that he shares the view of the person he quoted in the OP, because by doing so, he would admit that he is a liar. It would contradict one of his previous claims, that he possesses visual and auditory evidence to prove the existence of his god (something that he has yet to demonstrate).

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
06-03-2013, 05:56 PM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2013 06:07 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(06-03-2013 02:50 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  A Christian said this once:

"I cannot provide you proof. If proof were possible, it would require God and the miraculous to be measurable, repeatable, observable, which would imply that proof would rest in understanding the physical and natural phenomena of the universe. This would mean that in order for God, to be provable, he would have to be part of the physical universe is subject to its laws. But then, that would contradict the issue of who God is and what were trying to discuss and proof to begin with."

Discuss.

Simple. You just redefine God to be precisely that and all dilemmas disappear. Spinoza already worked this shit out going on half a millenium ago.

(06-03-2013 03:33 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  You can't subject God to a finite set of rules if He is infinite.

The fuck, dude. We don't have rules we can apply to the infinite? Have you studied calculus? Are you aware of Cantor's Diagonalization? ... The fuck we can't.

(06-03-2013 03:46 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 03:37 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Outcome: Theists are on the shit-end of the stick when it comes to logical principles and their arguments for the existence of God are logically invalid, which is not the same as saying they can't/don't exist, but really isn't much better from a debate standpoint.
Well... only if the theist doesn't acknowledge this. If the theist acknowledges this, and in fact, give Biblical support to the claim (that belief in God = faith), then the atheist doesn't have much ammo.

I know this has been a frustration with some when discussion God with me. I'm fully aware that God can't be proved empirically; likewise, I also acknowledge that scripture teaches us that those that believe in God have faith - therefore, believing in God = faith.

There's no ammo required KC, 'cause there ain't nothing to shoot at. You admit your belief is untenable and logically indefensible and yet inexplicably hold dear to it anyway. Fair enough, I can grant you that. To each his own. I'm not gonna try and take the Gwynnies away from Johnny Cantor. But you do expose yourself to ridicule by doing so. But you handle ridicule well, so it's all good, brother.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
06-03-2013, 05:58 PM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(06-03-2013 03:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "I cannot provide you proof. If proof were possible, it would require God Titans and the miraculous to be measurable, repeatable, observable, which would imply that proof would rest in understanding the physical and natural phenomena of the universe. This would mean that in order for God Titans, to be provable, they would have to be part of the physical universe are subject to its laws. But then, that would contradict the issue of who God the Titans are and what we're trying to discuss and proof to begin with."



Or use ghosts, goblins, fairies, monsters, time-travelling aliens, etc. If you believe it, great. If you think something like the above quote demonstrates anything other than a delusion, sorry. If you think it makes a sound argument, you are wrong. If it is the reason you believe, your position is weak and heavily flawed. If you think it will convince anyone, you are delusional (again).
This simply bears repeating. I couldn't have worded it any better.


"I cannot provide you proof. If proof were possible, it would require God Titans and the miraculous to be measurable, repeatable, observable, which would imply that proof would rest in understanding the physical and natural phenomena of the universe. This would mean that in order for God Titans, to be provable, they would have to be part of the physical universe are subject to its laws. But then, that would contradict the issue of who God the Titans are and what we're trying to discuss and proof to begin with."



Or use ghosts, goblins, fairies, monsters, time-travelling aliens, etc. If you believe it, great. If you think something like the above quote demonstrates anything other than a delusion, sorry. If you think it makes a sound argument, you are wrong. If it is the reason you believe, your position is weak and heavily flawed. If you think it will convince anyone, you are delusional (again).

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
07-03-2013, 08:06 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
Quote:You don't care for this quote, and yet...you post it. As if it has any relevancy to anything posted by you before.
I just wanted opinions... and to confirm how I felt about it. Why would KC ask everyone what religion they might "choose" if he doesn't believe in free will...? Smile
Quote:I doubt that he's going to admit that he shares the view of the person he quoted in the OP, because by doing so, he would admit that he is a liar. It would contradict one of his previous claims, that he possesses visual and auditory evidence to prove the existence of his god (something that he has yet to demonstrate).
You were already offered such evidence and were necessairily distracted by a family difficulty. I'm trying to maintain my sensitivity in this regard. Perhaps God will allow us to reschedule at a later date, I hope so!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Heard Around The Oort Cloud
(07-03-2013 08:06 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You were already offered such evidence and were necessairily distracted by a family difficulty. I'm trying to maintain my sensitivity in this regard. Perhaps God will allow us to reschedule at a later date, I hope so!
Would you please post a link to the post in which you allegedly provided me with visual and auditory evidence for the existence of your god? I can guarantee you that you never did.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: