Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 01:51 PM)H4ym4n Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:22 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Hey Call of the Willfully stupid, why don't you just admit to all of us here that you just cannot acknowledge evolution to be true, no matter what evidence is presented. You cannot allow it to be true since is will so incredibly shake the foundation of the mental condition, or "faith", which you have this need to cling to. It just cannot be credible in order for your belief system to remain intact. You are fooling yourself if you do not confirm this explanation, mister "I don't give a damn" in regards to evidence contrary to the fantasy you hold so dear. Or you can keep digging in your heels, abandon rational thought, and remain stupid.


Leave this one alone. Let him believe.

You won't like him if he finds out god/jesus/ghost isn't real.

Yeah, scary either way I guess. He sounds like one that would not handle the resulting enlightenment very well!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 01:53 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:51 PM)H4ym4n Wrote:  Leave this one alone. Let him believe.

You won't like him if he finds out god/jesus/ghost isn't real.

Yeah, scary either way I guess. He sounds like one that would not handle the resulting enlightenment very well!

Read for yourself

I want this disgusting shit to be on record.






Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 02:31 PM)H4ym4n Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:53 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Yeah, scary either way I guess. He sounds like one that would not handle the resulting enlightenment very well!

Read for yourself

I want this disgusting shit to be on record.







Forgot about that! GASP - might be best to leave delusional and fragile nitwits alone to live there fantasy, but that is just not how things fly around here. I guess I will still be tempted to mock his stupid views and just hope if he seriously derails, he will take it out on fellow delusional nitwits.Blink

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Question about flood
(26-03-2015 05:05 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ... I am not clear as to what light was actually manifested in Gen 1:3-4, we can only speculate.

Every now and then the truth leaks out despite the believer's best attempts to keep it bottled up, as here, a plain admission that at least one bible passage is meaningless without accompanying speculation. As this particular passage is in the first hundred words of a document of 900,000 words, that subsequent passages are also meaningless without attendant speculation requires no speculation at all to conclude that they are and that they are numerous.

If our esteemed correspondent COTW has to speculate as to what a passage means, he must base that speculation on sources outside the bible. Those sources could be his own deranged imagination, other books he's read, movies seen, TV watched, conversations he's had, some combination of the foregoing, etc. Whatever those sources, they aren't the same as the sources applied by someone else similarly forced to speculate as to a passage's meaning. Hence, we have a world with one bible and twelve hundred bazillion speculations of what it means. That's not a speculation, that's a fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Airportkid's post
27-03-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 11:28 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  But some people just feel the need to say something.

...

I find it hard to believe that this level of obtuseness can be attained by accident.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
27-03-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 10:37 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 06:30 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  It's hard to explain biology to people who accept the idea that non living dirt can become living human beings.

If God exists, then turning non living dirt to living human beings is childs play. But what makes absolutely no sense whatsoever is the concept of non living matter suddenly/gradually coming to life.

Makes no sense.

Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain it.





Always good to learn Sean, it's never good to mock people who are trying.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
27-03-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 11:54 AM)H4ym4n Wrote:  Btw, you're doing a fine job at showing how f'd up and whacked out Christianity is.

He's not a "true Christian". I AM. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 04:32 PM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 01:22 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Hey Call of the Willfully stupid, why don't you just admit to all of us here that you just cannot acknowledge evolution to be true, no matter what evidence is presented.

Will you admit the same thing regarding your take on Christianity?

(27-03-2015 01:22 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  You cannot allow it to be true since is will so incredibly shake the foundation of the mental condition, or "faith", which you have this need to cling to. It just cannot be credible in order for your belief system to remain intact.

Again, there are some Christians that believe in evolution...so if I believed in evolution, that would not necessarily "shake the foundation of the mental condition/faith which I have this need to cling to."

So try again, sir.

(27-03-2015 01:22 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  You are fooling yourself if you do not confirm this explanation, mister "I don't give a damn" in regards to evidence contrary to the fantasy you hold so dear. Or you can keep digging in your heels, abandon rational thought, and remain stupid.

I will remain stupid and continue to believe in Christianity and be granted eternity life with the Almighty. You can remain smart and continue to believe in "voodoo" science called evolution without God, and we will let the chips fall where they may.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 04:40 PM
RE: Question about flood
Quote:Will you admit the same thing regarding your take on Christianity?

Xtianity is a pile of shit....just like every other religion invented by men.

Be happy being conned, moron.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 04:47 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2015 09:06 PM by SevenPatch.)
RE: Question about flood
(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Wait, are you saying the Bible is a historical account?

Yes

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Do you think all ancient texts are historical accounts? Does that mean that Hercules, Thor, Vishnu, Amaterasu, Shangdi, the Kraken, Epic of Gilgamesh, Amun-Ra, Mummu, Tiamat, Apsu, Zues and Mohammad are all historical truth?

No

So, you’ve stated the following:

(20-03-2015 09:38 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  We don't have original copies of anything in antiquity, first of all ....

(22-03-2015 11:57 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  ...I made that statement because YOU were the one implying and making it seem as if the Bible needs external Biblical sources to corroborate it, as if it can't be true without extra-Biblical sources..and I said that the Bible COULD be true regardless of whether or not there are extra-Biblical sources, which is just the fact of the matter.

So if the Bible could be true, can’t other ancient texts also be true? In what way are you able to determine that the Bible is a historical account yet also say that other ancient texts are not historical truth?

Here is the entire quote of the 2nd quote above where you make a mistake that I think should be corrected:

(22-03-2015 11:57 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 10:31 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Item: There's zero evidence anywhere except in the self-serving Christian Gospels to support the resurrection.

I disagree with that, but either way, you are assuming that the Resurrection accounts in the Bible cannot be true unless they are substantiated by external-Biblical sources, which is fallacious reasoning.

The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

In the comment you quoted from daniel1948, nowhere does he say the resurrection accounts “cannot” be true. What he is saying is we have no good reason to believe it is true which is not the same as saying “it cannot be true”. That is something you need to recognize. We could agree that the Bible COULD be true, but that is irrelevant as it is a red herring fallacy and it doesn’t change the fact that there is zero evidence anywhere except in the Christian Gospels to support the resurrection story, which means that we have no good reason to believe it is true.

If you’d like to share the reasons why you believe it to be true, be my guest or if you prefer, you can continue to waste time and dodge the problems you are faced with, we can do that too. I’m sure someone will find it amusing and if you don’t mind making a fool of yourself, so be it.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Actually, if one does use the standards of actual historians, the Bible is just a collection of fairy tales “borrowed” from other fairy tales (of which you assume are false anyway). Try reading a few books on the subject of the history of the Bible and other ancient texts from the era that the Bible was written.

Christianity borrowed from whom?

It is a comprehensively long list, but let’s take a look at the one particular instance that you’ve brought up; the resurrection story and Jesus in general.

The resurrection story in Christianity has primary borrowed from Assyrian, Sumerian, Babylonian and Greek myths and also has influence from Egyptian myths.

Starting from least influence to greatest influence

Egyptian resurrection myths: Osiris was murdered, he then descended into the underworld before being resurrected 3 days after his death according to Egyptian myth. This myth likely had the least influence on Christianity (if any at all) but it should be noted that ancient Roman and Greek historians had interest in studying the Egyptian myths and wrote about them, which would have made it easy for early Hebrew and Christian writers to be aware of the Egyptian myths (at least according to Greek and Roman writers). Horus, the son of Osiris was also the son of goddess Isis, who in the view of Roman and Greek culture was a virgin goddess due to her purity and beauty.

Sumerian resurrection myths: Inanna (Ishtar) had descended into the underworld and before being killed was stripped naked. After being killed, she was placed on a hook or nail and a steak. After 3 days, Inanna (Ishtar) was brought back to life.

Greek resurrection myths: Dionysus was the son of a mortal woman (notably not mentioned as a virgin though) and the king of the Greek gods, Zeus. He is the god of the grape harvest and wine and the typical way to celebrate the harvest season starting in July/August is to drink wine and eat bread. The same imagery of wine and bread would be used in the Jesus story, although notably Jesus would turn water into wine which is seen by scholars as a way to one up Dionysus. Other similarities include the followers of both Dionysus and Jesus were persecuted and imprisoned, both Dionysus and Jesus were capable of descending into the underworld to rescue souls and fight demons, they both are capable of resurrecting the dead and both Dionysus and Jesus are questioned about their divinity. Interestingly, there was a cult of Dionysus in the 3rd and 4th Century CE which had become strictly monotheistic meaning Dionysus was seen as the son of the creator god and this cult was primarily competing against Christianity.

Assyrian / Babylonian resurrection myths: Marduk/Bel/Ba’al was arrested in April and goes on trial where a Priest/Judge asks “What is his sin?” (similar to Pilate asking what evil Jesus had done), Ba’al is judged and sentenced to torture (scourging, just like Jesus) and death by being bound (probably crucifixion as this method of execution originated with the Assyrians and Babylonians around the 7th century BCE which is when the Ba’al myth originated). Other criminals were sentence along with Ba’al to execution. Ba’al would have to travel to a hill/mountain for his execution (similar to Jesus traveling to Golgotha). A riot occurs in reaction to Ba’al’s death where as an earthquake and dead rising from the grave after Jesus dies. Ba’al’s clothing is removed like Jesus and is wrapped in a burial garment prior to being taken to a tomb. Both Ba’al and Jesus decend into the underworld. Women mourn at the tomb of both Ba’al and Jesus before they both are resurrected. One final similarity is that Ba’al would tell his followers that he would return once again to Babylon to be king and bring salvation to the kingdom and judge those who had been wicked.

Additionally, other stories involving Jesus match up with Roman Emperor Vespasian curing a blind man with his spit in the 1st Century CE, Apollonius of Tyre raising a girl from the dead in the 1st Century CE, Heliodoros raising a man from the dead In the 3rd Century CE and Pagan healers curing the paralyzed in the 2nd Century CE.

It is important to also note that the primary languages from the period in the region were Aramaic and ancient Greek, so all of the stories above would have been available and writers would have been familiar with them. Also, the Romans and the Greeks were known for incorporating the religions of concurred territories into their own culture, either by adopting the gods / goddesses to replace their own gods / goddesses like the Greeks did with the Egyptian goddess Isis, or by incorporating aspects of the stories into the stories of their own gods / goddesses. The Romans did this with the Greek and Egyptian culture as well. There is a lot more I can say on this subject but I’ll leave it here.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Here is a short list of the logic and evidence:

1. Problem of Evil

In order for there to be a problem of evil, one has to presuppose a standard of goodness at which the evil is in contrary too, and on atheism, there is no objective problem of evil, but a subjective problem of evil. So before we can get in depths with this argument, first I would need to know on what grounds does an atheist stand on for objective morality?

Clearly, you’re not familiar with the Problem of Evil, on many levels. You seem to be trying to jump straight into the theist apologetics, and unfortunately for you the theist apologetics are fairly useless (and I’ll explain why).

The problem of evil can be summarized in a number of ways (taken from Wikipedia for convenience purposes as I’ve already spent enough time).

First:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolant God exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Second:

1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
3. An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
5. An omnipotent being has the power to prevent evil from coming into existence
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists.
9. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God does not exist (at least point 2 is false or at least some part of it).

My personal favorite version is the Epicurean paradox which states, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Ironic that you should chose to define God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent later in your post. Not to mention that even those individual concepts are internally inconsistent.

I digress, back to your theist apologetics regarding needing a morality standard or standard of goodness at which evil is contrary to. First, the problem of evil is about the nature of God. The two logical arguments above are logically valid, however at least one of the points (1 or 2) in the first example or one of the points (1 through 8) in the second example is false because one of them is inconsistent with the others, otherwise point 3 in the first example or point 9 in the second example are true. Morality is irrelevant to the Problem of Evil as when discussing morality, we get into the Euthyphro dilemma.

If we were to presuppose a standard of morality (what is objectively morally good and what is objectively morally evil) which by the way would be independent of God, then we run into problems in which God is bound by the standard of morality and thus is not omnipotent which would explain why evil exists as God is unable to prevent evil. Furthermore, the omniscience and omnibenevolence of God is still in question, since we are able to discern that evil exists objectively because we’ve presupposed that objective morality exists. Most importantly, if objective morality exists, then God is unnecessary in regards to morality.

If we presuppose that morality is subjective and God is required to determine morality then there is no reason for morality other than being the will of God thus God’s commands are arbitrarily based on nothing. Morality is then arbitrary, which would mean that anything could become good or evil based entirely on the will of God. Interestingly, if morality is arbitrary, then anything and everything we would consider good or evil, isn’t actually good or evil and God is not omnibenevolent. In this case, God would actually be malevolent (a malevolent dictator, sort of like North Korea).

To summarize, no matter if morality is objective or subjective, the Problem of Evil still a problem. Sorry, there is no solution to the Problem of Evil, just a lot of deception in order to sidestep or bypass the problem without actually resolving it. The thing is, the resolution already exists, namely that this omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God does not exist. Whether theists like this or not is irrelevant.

I suppose you may have been implying that in order to recognize good, one must have evil to compare which would be mostly absurd. I suppose that some acts or things might be considered necessary evil, but there are thousands of blatantly obvious examples of unnecessary evil. Additionally, you run into the same problems in this case as you would if morality was subjective.

Oh yeah, one more thing, atheism says nothing about morality and whether it is objective or subjective since with or without God, either objective morality or subjective morality could be true.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  2. Euthyphro dilemma

Euthypro dilemma is like saying "Is it an apple because it came from an apple tree, or does coming from an apple tree make it an apple" Laugh out load

So you are not familiar with or don’t comprehend the Euthyphro dilemma either. Your analogy is uselessly redundant although I’d guess you thought it was clever. If it is an apple because it came from an apple tree then obviously coming from the apple tree is what made it an apple, which makes your analogy redundant since you just stated the same thing in a different order. If you think the Euthyphro dilemma is redundant then you clearly don’t understand it.

The Euthyphro dilemma is a question of whether morality is objective or subjective from the perspective of God (which I briefly went over in the Problem of Evil section) and the consequences of either being true being detrimental to the concept of God.

The Euthyphro dilemma can be stated in the following way:

“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”

I suppose the reason you came up with your analogy because you assume that the goodness is the very nature of God in an attempt to pick neither horn of the dilemma. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work, whether something is good because it is commanded by God or because it is the nature of God is still the 2nd horn of the dilemma. This problem has not been solved and often is ignored by theists because they don’t like the necessary conclusions.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  5. Occam’s razor

The God Hypothesis has more explanatory value than the Nature Hypothesis, so it is necessary to go with the explanation that better explains the question of origins (life, morality, consciousness, universe).

Yet another thing you are unfamiliar with or don’t comprehend. Occam’s razor is not about explanatory value, it is about predictive value and the hypothesis with (the most) predictive value while making the least assumptions is the most robust and reasonable hypothesis. The God Hypothesis has zero predictive value and makes many unnecessary assumptions.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  6. Problem of multiple religions

Due to the strong case that can be made for Christianity/Resurrection, all other religions seem very obsolete.

All followers of all religions say the same exact thing about their own religion. Of course, that is okay because you’re right and they’re wrong and there is no possible way that you could be wrong, yet others are very wrong.

There are far more problems that you don’t bring up though like why would your god allow other religions in the first place? Is your god incompetent? Maybe your god is okay with so many people being deceived by the wrong religion?

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  9. History of the Bible (specifically an argument against the Abrahamic religions)

I am a Christian, so theoretically, my belief begins with the New Testament, so you can debunk the Old Testament all you want to, but I am on a completely different geographical location with the New Testament, and it is here I'd like us to meet for battle Yes

I don’t know that “debunk” is the right term here. Sure, certain things can be debunked but as a whole I don’t know if that is considered debunking an entire book. I’m not really referring to debunking the Bible as an argument rather just the history of the Bible, who wrote it (their perceptions and agenda’s behind their writing) and the timeline of the writings is an argument against taking the Bible as more than it is. What it is, is just a story, a story being pushed in the same way that other stories were being pushed at the time by other cults. Christianity just happened to be the winner in Europe.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  11. No objectively verifiable evidence exists for the existence of any god or gods

The kalam cosmological argument is objective, verifiable, and demonstrable evidence of a First Cause.

Well, it is objective, I’ll give you that since it is presented as a logical argument. Unfortunately, it makes assumptions that are not verifiable and nothing is made clearly apparent by this argument other than it is a syllogism. If the assumptions are true, then sure, it is a fine logical deduction, but again, we have no reason to assume the premise or deductions are actually true. The primary assumptions are that the universe began to exist as opposed to it always existed, the second assumption that if it were indeed caused to exist that the cause was a creator and the third assumption that the creator is uncaused (not to mention the assumptions about this creator’s properties). None of these assumptions are objectively verifiable.

Thanks for playing the evidence game, we look forward to you trying again.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  12. Psychology, Physics, Biology and the Scientific Method and the fact that Science actually works

If you can't scientifically explain how life came from nonlife, knowledge came from ignorance (consciousness), the universe came from nothing, and the concept of objective morality...then apparently, science isnt working too well.

Wait, do I have to personally explain something? Why? Also, why is not having an answer yet considered “isn’t working too well”? Besides, your definitions of life and nonlife are not used by science as they don’t match observation and are inconsistent. Not sure why you put “consciousness” in parenthesis after “knowledge came from ignorance”. Consciousness is a product of the brain and there are many other things about the brain which make it possible for knowledge to come from ignorance. Your definition of nothing is also useless for science since it makes the assumption that nothing is even possible. Science doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the concept of morality. Morality is generally a philosophical subject, however science can explain why and how things influence our concept of morality. Yeah, sorry, science is working just fine. Every day, you take advantage of the fact that it works too just like everyone else, although you don’t like that it doesn’t gives easy answers like certain fairy tales.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  13. Argument from poor design

A poor design is still a design Laugh out load

Yeah so, big surprise, you’re not familiar with the argument from poor design either. I’ll keep this reply simple and respond to your statement, okay fine a poor design is still a design, but it’s not a design created by a omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God now is it?


(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  14. Praying to anything including inanimate objects is equally as effective as praying to a god or gods

Based on what?

Testing and observation. Go ahead, pray to a specific inanimate object in your house exactly as you would God for a few months and record the results.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  15. Paradox of free will

This may be your biggest chance.

Biggest chance for what? I’m not here to prove that God doesn’t exist, I’m here to find out if God does exist, and there are a lot of problems standing in the way of God’s existence being true. I’m not going to forsake intellectual honesty and pretend to believe in something that I have no reason to believe exists.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  17. All religious apologetic arguments have been refuted (despite your denial that they have)

Refuted by whom?

Why don’t you look up counter arguments to your favorite arguments. I’ve done enough of your work for you.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  3. Problem of Hell
4. Problem of Heaven

Never heard of these two.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  7. SPAG (Self Projection as God)
8. Incompatible-properties argument

Never heard of these two.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  10. Theological noncognitivism

Never heard of this one.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  16. Argument from inconsistent revelations

Never heard of this one.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  18. Omnipotence paradox and Omniscience paradox

Elaboration needed.

(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  19. Argument from non-belief
20. Destiny of the unevangelized
21. Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
22. Epistemological razor
23. Russell’s teapot
24. Alder’s razor
25. Argument from locality
26. Inability of a god or gods to heal amputees

Never heard of these.

Yeah, there is quite a lot you haven’t heard of, and even when you have heard of something you don’t comprehend it.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Actually, “God” hasn’t been defined. That is the problem. Notice how you haven’t actually defined God when claiming that God has been defined. Ironically, a lot of times, religious folks will give the knee jerk reaction, when they can’t honestly define God, by claiming that God can’t be defined. As if not being defined is a good thing. Those who try to actually define God use words that they themselves are undefined. This is the illusion of thinking God has been defined as the definition itself is undefined and therefore God remains undefined while we are meant to think God has been defined. The same problem happens when we try to define imaginary concepts that don’t exist in reality. I note this in my list above, it is called theological noncognitivism.

According to Christian theism, God is an unembodied mind. Now sure, I can't tell you what an unembodied mind looks like, but the concept is definitely conceivable, because I can...CONCEIVE IT. God also has four attributes that makes up his character...he is omnipotent (the most powerful being one can imagine), ominiscient (knowing the truth value of all propositions), omnipresent (at all places at all times), and and omnibenevolent (the ULTIMATE standard of moral perfection).

You made it seem as if this was supposed to be a difficult task, when it is actually quite easy.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Don’t answer that, it is a rhetorical question. Okay, good, you can conceive what an “un-embodied” mind entails on at least a basic level, however there are a number of problems here. First, there’s no evidence that such a thing exists nor that such a thing is even possible since the mind is the product of the brain which is the body, and without the body there is no mind (unless you have evidence otherwise). Second, even if you can conceive of such a thing, there are still entirely too many questions that need to be answered regarding the nature of this mind with no body, which leaves the word you used to define God with, still yet undefined. Third, if you want to define god as something that is non-existent (aka a mind without a body), be my guest as the modal ontological argument is defeated before it even starts since something that doesn’t exist can’t possibly exist (it’s a logical contradiction, like air in a vacuum).

Also, if you define God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent then you have to contend with the Problem of Evil, Euthphro dilemma as well as other paradoxes. By the way, if God is omniscient, then God is already omnipresent and using the definition omnipresent is unnecessarily redundant (why have I needed to apply that word to your comments a few times now? Oh well, never mind). Being omnipresent doesn’t make someone/something omniscient, but being omniscient does make someone/something omnipresent.

Thinking it was going to be easy really should have been a warning sign for you that something was wrong. Imagining things and making up BS is also easy. Too funny though that you did exactly what every other theist does when they think they have a definition. If only you’d put some effort into actually trying to figure out if God exists, instead of just assuming God exists, maybe you’d learn something.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  The problem with this step in the ontological argument is that it assumes just because something possibly exists that it does in fact exist.

Actually, it doesn't. It assumes that all POSSIBLE necessary truths must be ACTUALLY true <---this statement is what you must grasp. This may take a while for you to grasp, it took me a long time...but you are smarter than me, right? Big Grin

No, it doesn’t assume that all possible necessary truths must be actually true, it is possible that X is true only if it Is not necessary that X is false and it is necessary that X is true if and only if it is not possible that X is false. If something is necessarily true, then it is actually true because it is not possible that it is false. When talking about possible worlds, one is basically saying that X is possible or in other words X existing is possible is the same as saying X exists in a possible world however this is not the same as saying X actually exists because in order for X to actually exist, it would have to be necessary (or in other words, true). This means I was wrong to say point 2 was the most illogical of all the points, and instead daniel1948 was correct that point 3 is the most illogical. Point 3 is the most illogical because it assumes X is necessary because it is possible, this means point 3 is false logic because X can only be necessary if it is not possible that X is false. Unfortunately, it is possible that a maximally great being doesn’t exist.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  The typical ontological argument that I’m familiar with often makes the claim that something that exists is greater than something imagined (which could be possible) but again this has the same problem of not defining greater and not giving any reason why this is true nor demonstrating that it is indeed true, thus there is no reason to assume it is true. Why is it a bad thing to assume just because something possibly exists that it does in fact exist? Because anything we imagine then becomes reality according to the argument. If we imagine a being that is capable of killing the maximally great being, then this is also true because the ontological argument is true. If we imagine a maximally great island, then it exists. If we imagine a maximaly great superhero like Superman or the Hulk, then they exist.

That is the original OA...but I am talking about the Modal version...so basically, none of what you said in the above encyclopedia relates to the version I am defending.

No, some of what I said is indeed applicable to the Modal version. This can be said for example:

1. It is possible that a maximally great island exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great island exists, then a maximally great island exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great island exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great island exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great island exists in the actual world, then a maximally great island exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great island exists.


(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Point 3 goes back to the assumption that the maximally great being would exist in all possible worlds, again without any justification to make such an assumption.

That is because you are only looking at the outline of the argument at face value. Obviously, the person defending the argument will go through the argument step by step and explain why each premises is true.

No, I’ve heard and read many, many, many arguments and none of them justify the Modal ontological argument. Still, if you’d like to point me to the best justification that you’re aware of, I’m open to new things. However, the Modal ontological argument fails because it has to first prove that it is not possible for the maximally great being to not exist. Good luck proving that without being omniscient.


(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Points 4, 5 and 6 are irrelevant because they are just unnecessary conclusions already reached in point 3. If we jump to the assumption that this being exists in every possible world then we already assumed that it exists.

Well, if #2 is true, then it is a pretty damn good assumption that this being exists in every possible world.

Yeah sorry, point 2 is true according to Modal logic. Point 3 however is blatantly false. I still think points 4, 5 and 6 are redundant though since once you say that X is true in every possible world, you are saying that X is necessarily true.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  The ontological argument might as well be just these three points; 1: God by definition exists, 2: Anything defined to exist, does in fact exist, 3: God exists. That is all the argument is, trying to define God into existence.

The definition of something is independent of whether or not that "something" exists. This is something that I recognize, and I am the one that is defending the argument Laugh out load So obviously, that isn't what is being done here.

Your logic is non-sequitur since just because you recognize that definitions are independent of existence doesn’t mean you wouldn’t or couldn’t defend an argument that tries to define something into existence.

(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  It starts with the premise that God exists,

No, it starts with the premise that it is POSSIBLE for God to exist. That is a big fundamental difference that you need to realize.

It defined God as something that exists, and then started with God which exists possibly exists. This is the whole point of using words like maximally and greatest because pre-defined existence is roped into the definition. It wouldn’t be maximally great if it didn’t exist right? So maybe the maximally greatest being does exist in the actual world because the maximally greatest being isn’t God, but it is cockroaches, or dolphins, or mice, or humans, or birds.


(21-03-2015 09:00 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 03:26 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  In basic Logic 101, this is an attempt at deductive reasoning, however the problem with deductive reasoning is that the premise has to be true and the reasoning is completely useless if the premise isn’t true. So the ontological argument is useless until God can be objectively demonstrated to exist.

All premises are true.

I’ll assume you meant that all the premises in the Modal ontological argument are true because “all premises are true”, by itself taken out of context is really absurdly false. If my assumption is right, then you are incorrect as point 3 is false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SevenPatch's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: