Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-01-2017, 03:12 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unlike the proposition that leprechauns exist, in which a variety of physical descriptions are implied by it, little green men, from Ireland, who wear funny hats, etc... place gold at the end of the rainbow etc...

Nope.
Not necessarily.
ANY evidence at all would suffice, physical or otherwise.

Just like your god, there is none of any sort.
You're trying to make a distinction with no difference.

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
16-01-2017, 04:23 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I am saying is that the proposition that God exists, does not contain a claims about the physical properties of God, so to ask for evidence of this, would be making a categorical mistake. What it does often contain is a series of teleological arguments, so if one is to dispute anything about God existence, it would be this.

I'm pretty sure you just argued against christianity, but whatever.

(16-01-2017 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unlike the proposition that leprechauns exist, in which a variety of physical descriptions are implied by it, little green men, from Ireland, who wear funny hats, etc... place gold at the end of the rainbow etc...

Nope. Magic is magic. Both the New and Old Testaments give god physical properties.

I also note that I asked a similar question earlier:

(16-01-2017 08:21 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Why is faith in Zeus invalid?
Faith in Thor and Odin?
Buddha?
Allah?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The Tooth Fairy?

I think I'll add Cthuhlu to the list.

If we're relying on faith and written works, "Ia Ia Cthuhlu Fthagon!"

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 02:37 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 02:33 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:  So.. after my last posts, and the users on this site making it clear, I'm just repeating stuff. I got a good question from a couple of users on this site.

Why does there need to be an deity??
Good question.
The answer .........

You have zero reputation in the forum of the false atheists, and after such long discussion. Not far are you from the Heavenly Father. Thumbsup

Sorry, Bozo, we are genuine atheists. Drinking Beverage

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
16-01-2017, 04:53 PM
Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 04:23 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I am saying is that the proposition that God exists, does not contain a claims about the physical properties of God, so to ask for evidence of this, would be making a categorical mistake. What it does often contain is a series of teleological arguments, so if one is to dispute anything about God existence, it would be this.

I'm pretty sure you just argued against christianity, but whatever.

(16-01-2017 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Unlike the proposition that leprechauns exist, in which a variety of physical descriptions are implied by it, little green men, from Ireland, who wear funny hats, etc... place gold at the end of the rainbow etc...

Nope. Magic is magic. Both the New and Old Testaments give god physical properties.

I also note that I asked a similar question earlier:

(16-01-2017 08:21 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Why is faith in Zeus invalid?
Faith in Thor and Odin?
Buddha?
Allah?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The Tooth Fairy?

I think I'll add Cthuhlu to the list.

If we're relying on faith and written works, "Ia Ia Cthuhlu Fthagon!"

If I was interested in arguing against one strawman after the other, I might have actually responded to you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 05:03 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 04:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 04:23 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I'm pretty sure you just argued against christianity, but whatever.


Nope. Magic is magic. Both the New and Old Testaments give god physical properties.

I also note that I asked a similar question earlier:


I think I'll add Cthuhlu to the list.

If we're relying on faith and written works, "Ia Ia Cthuhlu Fthagon!"

If I was interested in arguing against one strawman after the other, I might have actually responded to you.

Does that mean you're going away ?
You are stuck in that "strawman" rut.

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
16-01-2017, 07:10 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 04:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I was interested in arguing against one strawman after the other, I might have actually responded to you.

Define the strawman.

You argued that:

Faith in god was synonymous with trust in a person.
Tangible evidence is unreliable and insufficient.
The bible was appropriate evidence.

Under that logic you can justify faith in any of the things that were listed, including Cthulhu and leprechauns.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 08:01 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 07:10 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Define the strawman.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."-wiki

In regards to your previous post:

I've made no arguments about magic and non- magic. Or about the validity of one faith, and the invalidity of the other. I argued about the meaning of the proposition, that God exists, and the meaning of the term "faith". Not the validity of either of them.

Quote:Faith in god was synonymous with trust in a person.

No, i argued that the word faith, is similar to the word trust, regardless of who or what one has faith or trust in, whether it was god, a person, or one's imaginary friend. You attempted to strawman this into an argument about the validity of having faith in one thing, over the other.

Quote:Tangible evidence is unreliable and insufficient.

Nope, another strawman. I never made or supported that argument. It's just another one your misrepresentations.

Quote:The bible was appropriate evidence.

Yes, in another thread, not this one, and in regards to a historical Jesus.

Quote:Under that logic you can justify faith in any of the things that were listed, including Cthulhu and leprechauns.

And that's the mother of all strawman.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-01-2017, 08:40 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 10:12 AM)mordant Wrote:  I do not see how a god can be personal and not be interventionist. Depending on definitions I guess. A personal god is one who relates in some way to you personally.
I can agree with that, also adding it’s one we relate to personally. For a Christian like myself, the idea of a personal God, is based on God revealing himself in Christ. And the way in which the story, being, and message is constant point of reflection in all the meaningful areas of my personal life, in thinking of my mother and father, my marriage, life, death, morality, tragedy, misfortune, joy, friendship, community, hope, perception of self, etc…. An intimate point of reference, that permeates among every other personal area that matters to me.
Your concept of "personal god" is rather unlike that of fundamentalists, who tout a vital, personal "relationship", answered prayer and the like. However, at the other end of the belief spectrum, even some deists believe god is a "personal" god in that they believe he dispenses rewards and punishments in this life. As much as I consider that word abuse to the point of rendering the word unrecognizable, I acknowledge that your use of the adjective "personal" with respect to god is, at least, not unprecedented.

Your are clearly a contemplative. You eschew imprecatory prayer entirely, in favor of meditative prayer. That is a minority position in Christendom, but also not unheard of.

I appreciate your explanation as it is helpful in understanding what to address in your arguments and how to address it. With your atypical belief profile we could easily talk past each other.
(16-01-2017 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In regards to answered prayer, atheists like to draw a distinction a believer is unlikely to make. A couple praying to conceive, and one day being able to give birth, would be grateful to God, even though they acknowledge that the circumstances, the treatments they received by medial professionals etc, were an entirely natural series of events. The course of history, the course of the natural world, are in this sense a product of the will of God. There’s no aspect of reality that operates outside of that, it’s always inside of it.
Rendering the concept meaningless.
(16-01-2017 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... any truth about God, his will and purpose, are conveyed kind of like the way an author conveys his meaning of a story to his audience, except in this case we are both the characters and the audience of that story. And I think it would be difficult to conceptualize it any other way in regards to an unchanging God.
If god's will is just life, then why not just call it life?
(16-01-2017 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In regards to answered prayer, atheists like to draw a distinction a believer is unlikely to make. A couple praying to conceive, and one day being able to give birth, would be grateful to God, even though they acknowledge that the circumstances, the treatments they received by medial professionals etc, were an entirely natural series of events. The course of history, the course of the natural world, are in this sense a product of the will of God. There’s no aspect of reality that operates outside of that, it’s always inside of it.
I think you are failing to draw a distinction that most believers actually, in fact, draw. Of course, as an atheist, I am actually far closer to YOUR point of view than to that of most believers. I don't expect prayer to be answered or for life to be in any way impacted by god. In my case because I don't believe he exists, in your case because you don't believe he intervenes. Funny how it amounts to the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
16-01-2017, 09:10 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I argued about the meaning of the proposition, that God exists, and the meaning of the term "faith".

No you haven't. You've made no arguments. At all.
You said you made an "assessment".
You failed to provide any reasons or criteria for your assessment.

STILL WAITING for you to tell us if you are part of the "messy".

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
16-01-2017, 09:52 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-01-2017 07:10 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Define the strawman.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."-wiki

I know the definition of a strawman. If I need an example I can look at one of your posts.

(16-01-2017 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In regards to your previous post:

I've made no arguments about magic and non- magic. Or about the validity of one faith, and the invalidity of the other. I argued about the meaning of the proposition, that God exists, and the meaning of the term "faith". Not the validity of either of them.

You are arguing for the existence of god. god by definition is supernatural. You are also arguing for creationism which is miraculous or magic. Magic and miracles are synonymous.

You did not argue about the validity of other faiths. I pointed that out to show you that your arguments were not sufficient to merit belief.

(16-01-2017 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Faith in god was synonymous with trust in a person.

No, i argued that the word faith, is similar to the word trust, regardless of who or what one has faith or trust in, whether it was god, a person, or one's imaginary friend. You attempted to strawman this into an argument about the validity of having faith in one thing, over the other.

Your posts are available for quotation:

(16-01-2017 06:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I'm sure you understand the meaning of faith, if one were to say I have faith that he'll keep his word, I have faith that you can do it. I have faith in my wife, etc...

While in another post you did use the word "similar", in the above quote you are clearly implying that the two are synonymous.

Even worse for your point, if faith in a person is NOT synonymous then it does not support your argument. The religious and secular definitions of faith clearly differentiate between faith in god and faith in a person.

And once again, my example of other faiths is not a strawman. It is an statement that your justifications can be used to prove unreasonable and unbelievable claims.

(16-01-2017 06:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Tangible evidence is unreliable and insufficient.

Nope, another strawman. I never made or supported that argument. It's just another one your misrepresentations.

This statement argues against physical evidence:
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Atheists seem to want to suggest that we can't infer any of this until we have blood samples of God himself, the long history of theism suggests otherwise.

This statement also argues against the need for physical evidence:
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Just to be clear we are talking about the idea of inferring design, a created order, from the object in question, absent of any physical evidence of it’s creator or designer. And as I said you can justifiably and legitimately do that.

This one too:
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You might have you own unique rule here, that claims we are forbidden from inferring design, or a created order, without physical verification of the entity responsible for it, but that’s just you, and your own unique playbook of reasoning.

This statement criticizes us for seeking physical evidence:
(16-01-2017 09:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You just serve as further proof, how naively out of touch atheists such as yourself and others are, with everyone else. Perhaps by spending so much time contemplating inanimate objects, resulted in a severe lack of understanding of people unlike yourself.

This statement claims that physical evidence is unnecessary:
(16-01-2017 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What I am saying is that the proposition that God exists, does not contain a claims about the physical properties of God, so to ask for evidence of this, would be making a categorical mistake. What it does often contain is a series of teleological arguments, so if one is to dispute anything about God existence, it would be this.

(16-01-2017 06:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The bible was appropriate evidence.

Yes, in another thread, not this one, and in regards to a historical Jesus.

The fact that it was made in another thread in no way invalidates the fact.

(16-01-2017 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Under that logic you can justify faith in any of the things that were listed, including Cthulhu and leprechauns.

And that's the mother of all strawman.

The fact that you do not have an argument to refute a point does not make that argument a strawman.


~ IA CTHULHU FTHAGON!!! ~

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: