The TTA Theological Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2013, 10:38 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
All those other religions not in connection to Jesus are just those demons in hell presenting themselves as gods in their corruption of mankind.. tricks of the devils.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2013, 10:43 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(14-02-2013 11:31 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Shouldn't it be "TTA theological argument". Instead of "the TTA..." (the the thinking atheist...) Consider
I think the TTA should buy an ATM machine ASAP as possible.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dark Light's post
14-02-2013, 10:49 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(14-02-2013 10:43 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(14-02-2013 11:31 AM)FSM_scot Wrote:  Shouldn't it be "TTA theological argument". Instead of "the TTA..." (the the thinking atheist...) Consider
I think the TTA should buy an ATM machine ASAP as possible.
Stop it, you merciless bastards. There's no need to LOL out loud at my mistake.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
15-02-2013, 01:16 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(14-02-2013 10:50 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Sitting here, enjoying my morning hot chocolate, I had a revelation. I've solved the dilemma of religion.

I present... the TTA Theological Argument.

1. A religious text requires human beings to exist;
2. A religious text does not require a god to exist;
3. If one religious text can exist without a god, then all religious texts can exist without a god;
Therefore:
4. Religious text is not proof of a god;

You're welcome, human race. Let's now celebrate an era of world peace with another hot chocolate.
Waitaminute. Doesn't combining 1 and 2 presuppose that human beings do not require a god to exist? I won't personally argue with this, but I'll point out that you're going to have to persuade a lot of other folk if you want them to buy into it.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 03:16 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(14-02-2013 10:50 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  Sitting here, enjoying my morning hot chocolate, I had a revelation. I've solved the dilemma of religion.

I present... the TTA Theological Argument.

1. A religious text requires human beings to exist;
2. A religious text does not require a god to exist;
3. If one religious text can exist without a god, then all religious texts can exist without a god;
Therefore:
4. Religious text is not proof of a god;

You're welcome, human race. Let's now celebrate an era of world peace with another hot chocolate.
Let me rephrase


1. A cup could exist with god
2. A cup could exist without god
3. Therefore because a cup could exist without god all cups could exist without god
4. So because the cup exists does not mean that god exists
I'd add
5. it also does not mean that god does not exist


But what if my cup is soo wonderful that it's existence demands the existence of god, what if my cup is for lack of a better word "divine". The burden then falls on the defender of the cup to give proof of it's divinity because in humanity's experience we have lots of cups but very few demand the need for a deity's existence to explain their existence therefore I think those cups that do demand the existence of a deity to explain their very existence really need to give us a cogent argument and proof of why this would be the case . So though your argument takes us to this first worthwhile conclusion it doesn't logically eliminate the religious text as proof of the existence of god(s) unless the religious text specifically being referred to can be shown to not demand the existence of god for its own existence.

But the point of me writing this is for someone to poke holes that I can't see, similar to what I think the person who started this thread was hoping.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Andrew_Njonjo's post
15-02-2013, 04:26 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 03:16 AM)Andrew_Njonjo Wrote:  ...
The burden then falls on the defender of the cup to give proof of its divinity because in humanity's experience we have lots of cups but very few demand the need for a deity's existence to explain their existence therefore I think those cups that do demand the existence of a deity to explain their very existence really need to give us a cogent argument and proof of why this would be the case.
...

Only a god could have written that sentence!
Bowing



guitar_nut,
Your premise 2. "2. A religious text does not require a god to exist;" is slightly ambiguous.

It could mean:
a) A religious text does not require (demand) a god to exist (as a god);
e.g. Buddhism... officially (for tax purposes) a religion with religious texts but no god.
i.e. the text exists but the god does not.
or
b) A religious text does not require a god to exist (as a religious text);
e.g. many christians' personal god (which has, morally speaking, very little in common with the god of the text) or Rahn's imaginary god over on a different thread.
i.e. the god may exist even though the text does not.

Ok, I'm splitting hairs because both require humans, either to write the text or to imagine the god. Even still, a god could possibly exist without humans but then, why would we care.

Either way, I like how you think and now, I'm hearing an interesting dialogue:

Typical theists A & B: I believe in god because the texts tell me so.
Atheist: If there were no texts, would your god still exist?

Typical theist A: No
Atheist: Then you are saying that god cannot exist without the humans who wrote it?
Obvious conclusion.

Typical theist B: Yes
Atheist: Please provide other evidence of your god's existence.
Result = no conclusion yet but the conversation cannot return to quotes / 'evidence' from the texts, so at least you're getting somewhere.

Thank you.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
Hmm, I see your point. This was mostly an exercise to divert discussion to evidence that exists outside religious text, which usually just results in more crappy 'evidence," but yes, #2 is ambiguous. Fortunately, theists are used to ambiguity!

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 10:58 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
What do you think of this syllogism?
Most religions have a Satan or adversary or opposing force. It inspired false religious texts. The many texts are proofs of an adversary to some truth or some God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 11:50 AM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
(15-02-2013 10:58 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  What do you think of this syllogism?
Most religions have a Satan or adversary or opposing force. It inspired false religious texts. The many texts are proofs of an adversary to some truth or some God.

That is true. All of Christianity appropriated the one from the Sumerian myth system, (Chaos), and personified and changed it somewhat. Of course after reading Dr. Elaine Pagel's "The Origins of Satan" no one would ever buy the Christian notion of evil's personification, and certainly after reading about the mythical origins of the Yahweh god, (the 40th son of El Elyon, the Hebrew god of the armies), would anyone ever be abole to take THAT crap seriously, but the history is indeed interesting as cultural history. That is all. Of course in a scientific world there are much better explanations for the phenomena we see around us, but in the historical context, one can see why humans would ascribe what they didn't understand about the universe to an outside, (and even a personified), "force". http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...lvation+my

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2013, 12:00 PM
RE: The TTA Theological Argument
Bucky,
I appreciate that you read a book that offers a reasonable explanation for the devil or opposition. But two opposing forces would explain a lot about the human condition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: