Why God can not exist - logical arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 03:58 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 02:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  But hypothetically speaking, if you were going to debate with me, what would be your chosen subject?

I would allow you to submit a topic of your choosing for review and then say yea or suggest an amended topic for your review until we either agreed to debate on an agreed topic or agreed not to debate.

That's so kind of you to allow me to submit a topic of my choosing in the hope that you may deign me with a decision and I feel honoured that you would bless me with such a privilige ... but it didn't answer my question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
21-06-2014, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 04:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 03:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I would allow you to submit a topic of your choosing for review and then say yea or suggest an amended topic for your review until we either agreed to debate on an agreed topic or agreed not to debate.

That's so kind of you to allow me to submit a topic of my choosing in the hope that you may deign me with a decision and I feel honoured that you would bless me with such a privilige ... but it didn't answer my question.

Pardone moi, madame, vous avez oublié le snort.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrfebzkUMyk

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 03:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I would allow you to submit a topic of your choosing for review and then say yea or suggest an amended topic for your review until we either agreed to debate on an agreed topic or agreed not to debate.

That's so kind of you to allow me to submit a topic of my choosing in the hope that you may deign me with a decision and I feel honoured that you would bless me with such a privilige ... but it didn't answer my question.

"Does God Exist?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 05:20 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 01:04 PM)Freethought Wrote:  As I originally posted, the several principles attributed to a god to explain the cosmos origin doesn't work. In fact, you're actually disproving the existence of an infinite god. I'll reiterate how this destroys the concept of god. If it is true (as the kalam asserts) that an actual infinity cannot exist in reality, (therefore there must have been a beginning), then god (if he is actually infinite) cannot exist in actuality. Think about it, god must have had a first thought. If the argument is right, then god also must have had a beginning because how could god have ever traversed the infinite series of his own previous thoughts to get to the point where he said "let there be light"? The answer you assert to get rid of the infinite regression of the universe in itself causes an infinite regression. Answering a mystery with another mystery does not work at all as you're just begging the question.

I read your source, (your response to me was merely a quotation in the source).

Two responses are in order:

1. There are several independent reasons to believe that premise two is more plausibly true than its contradictory, so the premise does not stand or fall on the philosophical argument against an actual infinte. In your situation I could just circumvent your objection by appealing to the empirical data we have from contemporary cosmology and astronomy to show premise two is more plausible than its contradictory thereby rendering your objection moot.

2. Even if the philosophical argument against an actual infinite was the only support for two, your objection fails because God is not an actual infinite. Dr. Craig explains why:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
[Image: fall-asleep-gif.gif]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anjele's post
21-06-2014, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 06:59 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 05:09 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 03:58 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  That's so kind of you to allow me to submit a topic of my choosing in the hope that you may deign me with a decision and I feel honoured that you would bless me with such a privilige ... but it didn't answer my question.

"Does God Exist?"

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If what your dogma is selling is some sorta bullshit promise of a postmortem preservation of identity, any question of God is premature. The burden is on you to first present a plausible mechanism of action for this dualism. Any plausible mechanism of action will do. Until then, any talk of God is nothing more than a masturbatory red herring designed to distract from that untenable position.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
21-06-2014, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 07:40 PM by Freethought.)
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Two responses are in order:

1. There are several independent reasons to believe that premise two is more plausibly true than its contradictory, so the premise does not stand or fall on the philosophical argument against an actual infinte. In your situation I could just circumvent your objection by appealing to the empirical data we have from contemporary cosmology and astronomy to show premise two is more plausible than its contradictory thereby rendering your objection moot.

2. Even if the philosophical argument against an actual infinite was the only support for two, your objection fails because God is not an actual infinite. Dr. Craig explains why:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite

Just because the universe (cosmos) began to exist doesn't mean a god created it. That would just be arguing out of ignorance. For example, if you don't know how the next tissue comes up from the tissue box, you don't assume it's god.

What you are doing is plugging a gap in our knowledge with the god of your choosing (god of the gaps). As I've already said, the Kalam is self-refuting. In addition, you haven't addressed any of my points yet about how the Kalam begs the question. All you've said is that since premise 2 (universe had a beginning) is more practical than its contrary (universe is infinite), then god exists. That doesn't help anything because you're back where you started, and I could in fact say likewise, god having a beginning is more practical than its contradictory (his being infinite), which means he'd need a god to create him, and that god would need one to create him, and so on.

Just because you happen to infer a particular god created the universe because you cannot fathom a universe's "beginning" without one doesn't mean it can't happen another way, or that the way you proposed is right just because it seems to be the only way to you. If the universe needs a creator, why doesn't god?

Everyday is judgement day. Use your judgement, use reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Freethought's post
21-06-2014, 09:01 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 05:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The burden is on you to first present a plausible mechanism of action for this dualism.

I do not have to present a plausible mechanism or explanation for dualism to show that dualism is the more plausible explanation than materialism for a specific given set of data. Philosophers of science recognize that in order to recognize an explanation x as the best explanation for any given set of data d, you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation x. The reason is obvious. Demanding explanations of explanations results in an infinite regress of explanations which would render the entire scientific endeavor impotent to explain the observable phenomenon in the natural world. For example, if, when astronauts hand landed on the moon for the first time in history, they found a pile of what appeared to be ancient machine parts with strange and unknown markings on them, the astronauts would have immediately notified NASA ground control of this and the entire scientific community would have been breaking their necks to hold press conferences about the discovery of evidence of extra terrestrial life on the moon. They would have known nothing at all about how the machine parts got there, who made them, what they were made of, what their purpose was, or what the engravings meant. But they would have still concluded, and quite justifiably, that the most plausible explanation was that some type of extra terrestrial intelligence was the cause of them being there.

If they were to take your view and your reasoning, they would have to throw their hands up and say:

"Well gah-lee! Since we do not know what mechanism made what appears to be these machine parts, we cannot say that these machine parts are more plausibly the effect of some efficient cause that at some time in the past caused these parts to be here."

That would be absurd. It is absurd because you do not have to have an explanation of the explanation in order to recognize it as the best explanation. Thus, your view is untenable and if scientists held your view, they would never be able to explain anything!

Dualism is simply the position in philosophy of mind, that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. Thus, it encompasses a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, and is contrasted with other positions, such as physicalism/materialism. Aristotle, Plato and Descartes were all dualists just to name some of the more well-known philosophers who held the view.


(21-06-2014 05:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Any plausible mechanism of action will do. Until then, any talk of God is nothing more than a masturbatory red herring designed to distract from that untenable position.

Evidence for dualism comes in various forms. The Kalam for example is an argument against materialism/physicalism and thus for dualism because upon a conceptual analysis of what the efficient cause of the universe must be, it is shown that an unembodied mind is the most plausible explanation. Thus we have one argument for the existence of an unembodied mind. If at least one unembodied mind is shown to plausibly exist, then materialism is shown to be more plausibly false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 09:20 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 09:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Evidence for dualism comes in various forms. The Kalam for example is an argument against materialism/physicalism and thus for dualism because upon a conceptual analysis of what the efficient cause of the universe must be, it is shown that an unembodied mind is the most plausible explanation. Thus we have one argument for the existence of an unembodied mind. If at least one unembodied mind is shown to plausibly exist, then materialism is shown to be more plausibly false.

Nope, Wanker you pitifully LOST your Kalam argument with cjlr, you lying son of a bitch. You said you were here to "discuss with atheists'. You are here preaching, fuckwad. I see you are suffering from dementia.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-06-2014, 09:23 PM
RE: Why God can not exist - logical arguments
(21-06-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Dr. Craig explains why:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-actually-infinite

Hobo

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: