Question about flood
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 03:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Hey, serious question to my AF peeps: do we know if this Call of the Wild joker is His_Majesty, who we banned ages ago? Because the arguments are identical, right down to the wording.
Probably, but then again, don't they all basically mimic the standard anti-intellectual propaganda?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 03:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Hey, serious question to my AF peeps: do we know if this Call of the Wild joker is His_Majesty, who we banned ages ago? Because the arguments are identical, right down to the wording.

Maybe the AF intelligence services and the TTA intelligence services should pool some info. Consider

Just keep it off the books, below consular level, hush-hush, on the Q.T. Dodgy

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
28-03-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 03:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Hey, serious question to my AF peeps: do we know if this Call of the Wild joker is His_Majesty, who we banned ages ago? Because the arguments are identical, right down to the wording.

My hope would be that there is only one person this vapid.

Call of the Wild thinks brains are made of cartilage. After that declaration the rest is just blah, blah, blah.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
28-03-2015, 06:27 PM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 03:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Hey, serious question to my AF peeps: do we know if this Call of the Wild joker is His_Majesty, who we banned ages ago? Because the arguments are identical, right down to the wording.

I don't think so. While H_M got incoherent towards the end it wasn't nearly as bad as this idiot. CotW never pretended to coherency. Plus H_M was far far more intelligent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 03:29 PM)Anjele Wrote:  My hope would be that there is only one person this vapid.
Oh, Call is actually a lot more lucid than many of his coreligionists. Sad, but true.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 07:26 PM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2015 07:30 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 06:59 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(28-03-2015 03:29 PM)Anjele Wrote:  My hope would be that there is only one person this vapid.
Oh, Call is actually a lot more lucid than many of his coreligionists. Sad, but true.

[Image: huh.jpg]

No fucking way. There is a baseline for stoopid below which they can't be discerned. Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-03-2015, 07:45 PM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 03:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Hey, serious question to my AF peeps: do we know if this Call of the Wild joker is His_Majesty, who we banned ages ago? Because the arguments are identical, right down to the wording.

I think TTA needs to follow AF's lead on this.

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

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 07:43 AM
RE: Question about flood
Maybe on April 1st we should make a thread to COTW with conversion stories and see who can come up with the most outlandish one. He'd believe it.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  So if the Bible could be true, can’t other ancient texts also be true?

No. Since Christianity is monotheistic, if it is true, then I kinda doubt other religions like Islam and Hinduism would also be true.

I don't know, kind of a hunch of mines.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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?

I don't feel the need nor have the desire to examine every single ancient text ever written involving religion. All I know is, the historical evidence for Christianity is powerful, and convincing to me.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Well, Christians feel as if we have GOOD reasons to believe it is true. Now, you feel differently than we do on this matter, obviously. But hey, do what is best for you, good sir Thumbsup

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

So again, you are emphasizing on there being zero evidence anywhere except in the Bible, but what you (and most) unbelievers fail to realize or acknowledge is the fact that the books in the Bible were originally written as independent, separate books.

The books which makes up the Bible wasn't compiled together until hundreds of years later. So that means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, most of Paul's letters...were ALL originally independent accounts, which means that we have at least five DIFFERENT sources that are testifying to these things, all written during the life time of Jesus' followers.

This is the kind of stuff that historians drool over.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Laugh out loadLaugh out load some of these quotes from you people gives me quite the tickles.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

First off, the story you are telling of that particular Egyptian myth is just one version of many, and it isn't my job to determine the truth value of any of it. All religions have their origins, and each one is to be analyzed based on its own merits.

The religion of present day Egypt is now entirely Islamic, which means that once the Ancient Egyptian empire came to an end, so did the religion. This is unlike Israel and Judaism, which is just as Jewish today as it was during the days of Moses. To me, that counts for something.

Third, you said that it was in the view of the Romans and Greeks that Isis was a virgin, but Isaiah spoke of a virgin birth orchestrated by God (Isa 7:14) long before the Romans moved to the neighborhood, and Matt 1:23 parallels this virgin birth with the virgin birth of Jesus.


(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Not so fast, Charlie. According to the wiki story regarding Inanna...she was only TURNED into a corpse, and as you read the narrative, this doesn't necessarily imply that she was dead...because it later states that she was "revived", and while she was in the form of a corpse, others were tasked to "save" her. If she needed to be saved and was eventually revived, then she obviously wasn't dead in the first place.


(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.


(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

This is laughable. Jesus turned water to wine at a wedding after people came to him and told him that they were out of wine Laugh out load That has absolutely nothing to do with a harvest season whatsoever. And there is no "bread" stuff mentioned in the account of Jesus turning water into wine...and when Jesus did use the term "bread", it was meant to be symbolic, such as "I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never be hungry again" (John 6:35), which again has absolutely NOTHING to do with seasonal harvests.

You trying to conflate the two is what we would call "reaching". Try again.


(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

This wiki summary notes the minor (emphasizing on "minor) and major differences between Dionysus and Jesus..

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

If this cult originated 300-400 years AFTER Christ, then isn't it apparent who borrowed from who?

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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)

Um, don't know what you are talking about here regarding Marduk/Bel/Ba'al, as I don't see any reference to an arrest being made in the wiki article .

But even with that being said, if someone is on trial, wouldn't it be common for the judge to ask "What did she/he do?" So you making this piss poor attempt to draw a parallel between two different accounts of men who were arrested and brought to trial, and the judge asking "what crime did he commit" is......reaching Laugh out load

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Ba’al is judged and sentenced to torture (scourging, just like Jesus) and death by being bound

That is usually what happened to most criminals during that time, not just Jesus or Ba'al.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Other criminals were sentence along with Ba’al to execution.

So because both had criminals sentenced at the same that time they were, which was probably another commonality within the justice at that time, therefore, Christianity borrowed from them?

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Again, I don't see any of that good stuff about Ba'al in the context that you are putting it in. So give me a link, and I will go to my sources and debunk it, and we will move on from there Cool

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Additionally, other stories involving Jesus match up with Roman Emperor Vespasian curing a blind man with his spit in the 1st Century CE

Vespasian didn't become emperor until 69 AD...and all Gospels can be said to have been written prior to 70 AD...and Christianity itself dates back to within 5 years after the cross, which is anywhere between 35-38 AD. So the whole Vespasian thing is too late to be considered "borrowed" material.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Apollonius of Tyre raising a girl from the dead in the 1st Century CE

So if there are any other accounts in antiquity of someone raising a person from the dead, and if it predates the 1st Century CE, that would mean that the Apollonius account was borrowed from the prior accounts?

Fallacious reasoning.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  , Heliodoros raising a man from the dead In the 3rd Century CE and Pagan healers curing the paralyzed in the 2nd Century CE.

All dates are too late for Christianity to have borrowed anything from, my friend.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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).

Yeah, when I am presented with the same objections towards Christian theism, my "training" kicks in Laugh out load BTW, I am familiar with the problem of evil but of course, in order for you to flex your muscles on the topic and give your two cents, you have to portray my refutation as missing its mark, all so you can have a reason to speak your piece on the matter...which is ohhhhh so obvious.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

The first premise is immediately recognized as false. The only way evil would not exist is if there was a world at which created beings were prohibited from making the wrong moral choices.

But in a world where created beings have the FREEDOM to make morally wrong choices, then you will always have evil, because not even an Omni God can guarantee that beings with free will won't EVER make wrong moral choices.

So premise 1 is obviously false. Next.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Premise 3 is not necessarily true. If God knows that my coming to Christ will only happen if I suffer a traumatic experience, such as being hit by a drunk driver, and God allows the drunk driver to hit me, then that is an evil that God didn't WANT to prevent, because the "coming to Christ" because there is more value in getting hit and coming to Christ than there is to prevent the hit and NOT coming to Christ.

Not only that, but there are many times in the Bible where God allows evil to occur for the greater good. As long as God is behind the wheel of everything, then nothing occurs without his stamp of approval, and for whatever reason he allows something to occur, he has a reason behind it, even if we don't always know what this reason is.

So biblically (and logically speaking), premise 3 is not necessarily true, therefore any grand conclusion that results if premise 3 is assumed to be true is not necessarily true. So no point in addressing 5-9. Next.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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?”

How about this way...maybe, just maybe God has morally sufficient reasons to permit evil. Ever thing about that?? As long as this is even possible, your whole argument is shut down. There is absolutely no way for you to know whether or not God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting any evil act X.

Your argument is based on the assumption that he doesn't, and you have no reason to assume that he doesn't.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Based on what? Give me something to work with.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

You lost me here, buddy.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Lets just take away the fluff and feathers and ask ourselves, DOES OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXIST WITHOUT GOD??? Yes or no? Very simple and direct question.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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 objective morality exists without God, then where does this standard come from??

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

It is laughable that you think you presented this knock-down argument for the problem of evil.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Well, on atheism, which one is it?

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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

Ahh, so if it is a commandment coming from the ultimate standard of goodness, then obviously coming from the ultimate standard of goodness makes it a good commandment.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Well, I will put it to you this way: if God doesn't exist, then there is no point in having a discussion about whether or not God is good, or whether his commandments are good. But, if you are hypothetically saying, well, if God DOES exist, then is God good? Then of course, any commandment or action that God makes, you can claim that it isn't the right decision, but at that point it doesn't matter what your opinion regarding God's character, because if God exists, he is the boss.

So whether or not you agree/disagree with God on questions of morals or ethics is irrelevant, because in order for you to judge his actions, you are doing so based on your own personal standards, but then it goes back to moral relativism, doesn't it?

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

First off, I don't recall using Occam's razor in that context, and if I did, you sure as hell didn't leave it in the quote. Second, Occam's razor in simpler terms means that you shouldn't go beyond what is necessary to explain any given effect. For example, if only one suspect could have pulled off a bank heist, there is no need to think that two or more pulled it off, unless you have evidence to THINK that there were more assailants. But you don't need to multiple explanations beyond necessity.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  The God Hypothesis has zero predictive value and makes many unnecessary assumptions.

Nonsense. Predictive value? Who said anything about predictive value? The word "hypothesis" doesn't have to be used for scientific inquiry every time it is used...and it is not meant in this context to be used as an area for scientific inquiry. So the "predictive" stuff is irrelevant. Second, if you want to talk about predictive, can you predict when the next reptile-bird transformation will take place? Can you scientifically predict when this will occur? No, so therefore, the theory has zero predictive value, even using your own logic/words.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  All followers of all religions say the same exact thing about their own religion.

Well, merely saying and being able to historically make a case for it are two different things.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  There are far more problems that you don’t bring up though like why would your god allow other religions in the first place?

Why would my God allow people to make their own decisions using their free will? Is that really the question Consider

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Is your god incompetent? Maybe your god is okay with so many people being deceived by the wrong religion?

Well, since those that follow him aren't deceived, then I guess it goes right back to the freedom of the will.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

If the premises are true then the conclusion just logically is based on two true premises, with a conclusion in 3 that logically flows from the first two. It doesn't get any more simpler than that.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  The primary assumptions are that the universe began to exist as opposed to it always existed

Because it is explained why the universe couldn't have always existed in premise 2.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  , 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.

Yes it is. You are speaking in generalities instead of dealing in depth with what the premises are actually saying. You got in depth with the problem of evil, but when it comes to the kalam, oh, lets just touch on it and move on?? Laugh out load

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Thanks for playing the evidence game, we look forward to you trying again.

Mannnn please.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Wait, do I have to personally explain something? Why? Also, why is not having an answer yet considered “isn’t working too well”?

Because science isn't able to explain everything, SP...questions of origins (life, universe, morality, consciousness) are all questions that science cannot explain. If you have the mindset of "science can explain it, it will just take some time", then that is basically the equivalence of a Christian saying "Jesus will return soon, just give him some time".

In other words, you have FAITH in science.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Besides, your definitions of life and nonlife are not used by science as they don’t match observation and are inconsistent.

Laughable. What the hell do you think "nonlife" means? NOT LIVING. Or better yet, what does "inanimate" mean? NOT ALIVE. What does "life" mean? LIVING.

This is the part where the atheist gets technical and wants to carefully examine know what life and nonlife means, bro. It is not "dance around the issues" time.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Not sure why you put “consciousness” in parenthesis after “knowledge came from ignorance”. Consciousness is a product of the brain

Consciousness is a product of the brain? That is the theory, but what is the evidence for the theory. There are plenty bodies at the more that have brains, but no consciousness, so I am at a lost as to how the brain can produce consciousness. Please enlighten me.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  and there are many other things about the brain which make it possible for knowledge to come from ignorance.

Blank and baseless assertion. Moving on.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Your definition of nothing is also useless for science since it makes the assumption that nothing is even possible.

If nothing is impossible, then the universe has always existed...but wait a minute, we already have observational evidence that the universe began to exist, so it couldn't have always existed.

Right back to the question of origins, I see.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Science doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the concept of morality.

Which means the atheist cannot tell give any grounds as to why things like murder and rape is objectively wrong. Objective morality goes right out of the window. Gotcha Thumbsup

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Morality is generally a philosophical subject, however science can explain why and how things influence our concept of morality.

That is cool and all, but I am talking about the origins of morality...I could care less the explanation of what happened after it got here, I am asking how did it get here in the first place, which you already admitted that you don't have an answer, moving on.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Yeah, sorry, science is working just fine.

Not when it comes to the questions that I have, you know, the tough ones.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Saying that nonliving material came to life would be like the chair that is across my table coming to life and beginning to talk to me. I may as well believe that millions of years from now, that could actually happen.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Yeah so, big surprise, you’re not familiar with the argument from poor design either.

How the HELL does me saying "a poor design is still a design" show that I am not familiar with the argument from poor design? Dude, you simply suck at your logical deductions, and I don't know whether this is because again, you just want to flex your muscles on the subjects so you need to make such nonsense statements as a way to get your "two cents" in...or you just simply don't know how to comprehend statements and thereby draw logical conclusions from them.

Either way, both are sad.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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?

First off, what is "poor" in this context is a matter of opinion. It is subjective. Do you wanna know why it is subjective? Because I happen to think that God made good designs in nature. So you see, we have a different of opinion on whether the design was pretty damn poor, or pretty damn good. See how that works? Second, the creation/design that God made was to HIS standards, not to yours...and as long as it was good to him, that is all that matters. Third, just because God is omnipotent, it doesn't follow that everything he does HAVE to be perfect. If me and God is racing a mile down the road, and he can obviously beat me in the race because of his superhuman speed, that doesn't mean that he HAS to use his superhuman speed...he can run at whatever speed/pace he wants to.

Dude, you think you are raising these strong objections, when in actuality, you really aren't.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Testing and observation.

What test or observation have you conducted or saw that would lead you to the conclusion that reptiles evolved into birds?

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Go ahead, pray to a specific inanimate object in your house exactly as you would God for a few months and record the results.

As I said earlier, if I waited a few hundred years, maybe all of the inanimate objects in my house will come to life and begin talking and thinking. That is what you believed occurred hundred of millions of years ago, right? What is the difference?

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Biggest chance for what?

Well, that is one of the very few things that I cannot answer regarding God. In fact, it may be the only thing...and since you named about 15 of them, that is your biggest chance.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Problems like what? The stuff you already mentioned? You call those problems?? Laugh out load

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Why don’t you look up counter arguments to your favorite arguments. I’ve done enough of your work for you.

I don't need present them, and I'll make the counter arguments.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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).

Um, yes there is called the Argument from Consciousness, and it is based on mind/body dualism. Educate yourself on the subject, and get back with me.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Too many questions? Yet, none of which you've raised. And I already defined God, but you ignored it because you want to continue to flex your muscles, apparently.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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).

Straw man.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

I already handled that, and it was light work.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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).

Wow. That is the first good point you've made since.........anyway, I agree, however, I don't think it is redundant, personally. But I can understand how one can think that it is. But it isn't like your point serves as a defeater of the argument Laugh out load The argument still stands.

Now below is where we talk about the MOA...and this is where I am going to have soooo much fun. Observe.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  No, it doesn’t assume that all possible necessary truths must be actually true

Yes it does.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

I don't know what you are saying, or trying to say. Here is a simple syllogism for you...

1. All possible necessary truths must be ACTUALLY true
2. God's existence is a possible necessary truth
3. Therefore, God's existence is actually true

1 and 2 are true, so the conclusion in 3 just logically follows.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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

Ok, I follow so far. It is worth mentioning that when I say "I follow", I am not "following" in the sense that I am learning...I am "following" in the sense that I think what you said makes sense...definitely a distinction that needed to be made Big Grin

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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).

Makes no sense. So on that note, I will just say it again: God's existence is possibly necessarily true, and if God's existence is possibly necessarily true, then God exists. You've said nothing that is a defeater of this, nor CAN you say something that is a defeater of this.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

That is the point, X's existence IS possible. The only way you can demonstrate the impossibility of X is for you to somehow show that the concept of X is illogical..which you can't do. The concept of God is logically coherent, it does not violate any laws of logic...the concept is logical and conceivable. Now sure, you may not like the idea of such a being, but that does nothing to show how the being's existence is false.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  Unfortunately, it is possible that a maximally great being doesn’t exist.

No, unfortunately for you, your ignorance of the nature of necessity just showed its ugly head. You should know that when dealing with necessary propositions, there is no such thing as "well, X could be necessarily true, or X could be necessarily false". There is no 50/50. If God does not exist, then it is impossible for God to exist. If God does exist, then it is impossible for God to not exist. Necessary truths are either true or false in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.

So if it is possible for God to exist, then God must actually exist, and God's existence could never cease being true.

Modal Logic 101, kid.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Nonsense. What constitutes as a maximally great island is dependent upon the person that is defining what a maximally great island is. Everyone will have a different opinion of what a maximally great island is, and it is highly likely that no one definition of a maximally great island will reflect any that we have here on earth, which means that there is at least one possible world that a maximally great island exists....this world. Which means that your counter argument falls flat on its face without even getting past the first premise.

Unlike the MOA, at which the attributes of God are reached to maximum degrees, where it isn't even possible to go any higher.

Try again.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Oh, well, I did that on this very post Laugh out load

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

Well, above I chopped it down to a 3 point syllogism...and it looks fine to me.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

But that isn't what I am doing, so it is irrelevant.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  It defined God as something that exists, and then started with God which exists possibly exists.

Something that possibly exists.

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  This is the whole point of using words like maximally and greatest because pre-defined existence is roped into the definition.

Yeah but that is just the entity is what it is, and it isn't what it isn't. Just because you don't like the definition, hey, that is your problem Laugh out load

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  It wouldn’t be maximally great if it didn’t exist right?

And if you didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this discussion, right? The point is, you do exist, and so does the MGB (if the argument is true).

(27-03-2015 04:47 PM)SevenPatch Wrote:  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.

The 3 point syllogism...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Question about flood

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: