Why I Believe
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2017, 04:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2017 04:40 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Why I Believe
Arguments are not evidence. You can't talk something into existence. I have a video specifically on this, if you'd like to see it Smile

How do such people differentiate between a reality "with a god" and one without? If there's no way of doing so, they are merely assuming their conclusion to be true.

Such arguments just make wildly simplifying assumptions which spread across all of reality, way beyond our ability to test, and then draw vague conclusions based on those. It's garbage.

Whatever "most powerful" God you come up with: I define my God+ to be the same as yours except it can silence your god's powers. Mine is superior. God++ is even better.

It's no better than defining God to have the characteristic that it exists, thereby "proving" it exists. A creator? Maybe there is/was one. But who cares? It makes no difference.

Regarding random thoughts popping in: I get them all the time. I have the most absurd, obscene and scary thoughts. Brains are very complex and our conscious mind is very much unaware of what's really going on. Trying to assign meaning to them all is pointless.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
19-04-2017, 04:47 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(19-04-2017 04:37 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Arguments are not evidence. You can't talk something into existence. I have a video specifically on this, if you'd like to see it Smile

How do such people differentiate between a reality "with a god" and one without? If there's no way of doing so, they are merely assuming their conclusion to be true.

Such arguments just make wildly simplifying assumptions which spread across all of reality, way beyond our ability to test, and then draw vague conclusions based on those. It's garbage.

Whatever "most powerful" God you come up with: I define my God+ to be the same as yours except it can silence your god's powers. Mine is superior. God++ is even better.

It's no better than defining God to have the characteristic that it exists, thereby "proving" it exists. A creator? Maybe there is/was one. But who cares? It makes no difference.

Regarding random thoughts popping in: I get them all the time. I have the most absurd, obscene and scary thoughts. Brains are very complex and our conscious mind is very much unaware of what's really going on. Trying to assign meaning to them all is pointless.
Thanks Rob, I think I fear it because it is unknown to me (a classic disposition of human beings Big Grin)

Sure I'd like to watch your video, I've watched a couple so far and they're good. Thumbsup

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SeaJay's post
19-04-2017, 04:53 AM
RE: Why I Believe
That's perfectly natural! These things can seem convincing and strange at first glance. They are carefully constructed to be that way. But no one with anything demonstrably true to say about reality ever has to resort to them. They would simply present evidence.

Thanks so much, here you go Smile This is basically my knock-down for all argument-based apologetics.




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
19-04-2017, 04:58 AM
RE: Why I Believe
Thanks Rob

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 05:02 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2017 05:14 AM by SeaJay.)
RE: Why I Believe
Here's the argument distilled (somewhat)

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined

(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e. the greatest possible being that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (it's a contradiction to imagine a being greater than the greatest being)

(6) Therefore, God exists.


Huh

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2017, 05:32 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(19-04-2017 05:02 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Here's the argument distilled (somewhat)

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined

(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e. the greatest possible being that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (it's a contradiction to imagine a being greater than the greatest being)

(6) Therefore, God exists.


Huh

> Bullshit!

> Obviously, I can think of a being greater than the Christian God, and I can support this assertion via scripture. To wit:

"And they shall stand in despair before the white cliffs of the world, and shall chant from their empty tomes in vain, for their words are nothing! And Erú shall prevail against His enemies and they shall be cast into the Void, for their enchantments are naught and their gods are helpless before Him." (The Silmarillion, 17:82)"

> You can believe in any being with all of your might. That does not make this being anything other than a figment of your imagination.

> Point #1 is based upon a logical fallacy known as Argument from Assertion. The first point being false, the rest of the argument collapses.

> "That which may be asserted without evidence may also be dismissed without evidence." (Christopher Hitchens)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gwaithmir's post
19-04-2017, 05:34 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(19-04-2017 04:29 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  What do you think about the Ontological argument?
...
What? I'm not sure I understand it but it sounds profound (and that makes me uneasy - primarily because I don't understand it).

That is the value of the argument: it sounds profound.

Quote:It also sounds like it's saying God exists because God exists.

More that a god exists because we can imagine a god existing.

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that Zarquon is a candy than which none greater can be imagined

(2) Zarquon exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A candy that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a candy that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if Zarquon exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than Zarquon (i.e. the greatest possible candy that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than Zarquon (it's a contradiction to imagine a candy greater than the greatest candy)

(6) Therefore, Zarquon exists.


or perhaps...

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that God is a being than which none worse can be imagined

(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is worse than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is worse than God (i.e. the worst possible being that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is worse than God (it's a contradiction to imagine a being worse than the worst being)

(6) Therefore, God exists.


So we have proven that god does exist and is a complete asshole... or perhaps the ontological argument is an exercise in sophistry designed not to dazzle with brilliance but to baffle with bullshit.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
19-04-2017, 05:48 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(19-04-2017 05:34 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-04-2017 04:29 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  What do you think about the Ontological argument?
...
What? I'm not sure I understand it but it sounds profound (and that makes me uneasy - primarily because I don't understand it).

That is the value of the argument: it sounds profound.

Quote:It also sounds like it's saying God exists because God exists.

More that a god exists because we can imagine a god existing.

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that Zarquon is a candy than which none greater can be imagined

(2) Zarquon exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A candy that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a candy that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if Zarquon exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than Zarquon (i.e. the greatest possible candy that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than Zarquon (it's a contradiction to imagine a candy greater than the greatest candy)

(6) Therefore, Zarquon exists.


or perhaps...

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that God is a being than which none worse can be imagined

(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is worse than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is worse than God (i.e. the worst possible being that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is worse than God (it's a contradiction to imagine a being worse than the worst being)

(6) Therefore, God exists.


So we have proven that god does exist and is a complete asshole... or perhaps the ontological argument is an exercise in sophistry designed not to dazzle with brilliance but to baffle with bullshit.

> I was presented with this "argument" when I was a senior in Catholic high school. I debunked it, even though I had never had any training in formal logic at that time. It was another step toward my eventual atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gwaithmir's post
19-04-2017, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 19-04-2017 06:37 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Why I Believe
(19-04-2017 05:02 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Here's the argument distilled (somewhat)

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined

(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e. the greatest possible being that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (it's a contradiction to imagine a being greater than the greatest being)

(6) Therefore, God exists.


Huh

I like Robvalue's name for Anselm- Aquaman. Laugh out load

This argument really makes me wonder- why was Anselm considered a great thinker?

He literally admits in point 2 that his god exists as an idea in the mind. Yeah, exactly. Facepalm

Of course many others have debunked, remade and reformed this argument to the common ones we see today, I suppose William Lane Craig's version is the one we are most familiar with:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.


And so the best apologetic syllogism is an argument that posits that a "maximally great being" exists, this isn't the god of the bible. Drinking Beverage

I don't think I can surpass Immanuel Kant's critique of it.

I just think philosophical arguments are a waste of time, ultimately they are all conceptual and don't necessarily relate to the real world. Like Robvalue explained earlier- arguments are not evidence, they can only point you in a direction to go look for evidence, they are not the evidence themselves.

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
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
19-04-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: Why I Believe
(19-04-2017 05:02 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Here's the argument distilled (somewhat)

(1) It is a conceptual truth (i.e. true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined

(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.

(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.

(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e. the greatest possible being that exists).

(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (it's a contradiction to imagine a being greater than the greatest being)

(6) Therefore, God exists.


Huh

Mindboggling bullshit. Probably cutting edge 1000 years ago, but they also thought the earth was flat, and demons or witches exist.

I will condense it even more for you:
A real (as in: it does, factually, exist) being is "bigger" than any similar imaginary being. Thus a "maximally great" being does exist, and its my god, because anything less than not-existing would not be maximally great.

Like i often use to say: I am an engineer and not a philosopher, but even i can see how stupid this argument is.

The fallacy in this argument is to claim that a "real" being is "bigger" than a "imaginary" being. Its not, its different categories, apples and oranges. Imaginary beings do not exist, real beings do. Period.

Addendum:
Havent we already mentioned that you cant make reliable statements about things and their existence by wanking thinking hard alone?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: