Debating Theism

originally posted by: namelesss
Here's more "facts" that "matter";
Plenty of atheists make the positive assertion that "God does not exist!"

Every Atheist I know (including myself) simply states that "there is absolutely no evidence that suggests a god exists. In fact, we can observe how nature can form the very things that are claimed to be made by magic from many theists. So the evidence we see in our observations counters that claim. Therefore, we can claim beyond reasonable doubt that there is no god."

originally posted by: namelesss
That is as liable to demands for evidence and support as their theist twins!

When theists make direct claims that their god has 'this trait' and creates 'this thing' then they are no longer making unfalsifiable claims. Because we can see how two traits (such as being all powerful while also being all knowing) cannot exist because they cannot overpower one another; it becomes a logical fallacy.

If the claim is that god created 'this and this' at 'this specific time' all that is needed to disprove this is to show that something is older than that claimed creation. It becomes falsifiable.

If a theists makes absolutely no claims about anything, and simply suggests "there is a god", then that becomes an unfalsifiable claim, and only then would it be illogical to claim that that god does not exist. It's not acknowledging that that notion holds any substance or weight, because we can interchange god with any other unfalsifiable thing (such as interdimensional beings that are undetectable, or invisible unicorns).

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss

Link me to your thread in the philosophy section and I'd be glad to participate. I like your ideas very much, but they don't belong in this particular thread. It's just distracting.

Sorry, but I don't know what thread to which you refer.
If you can focus me, maybe, but I haven't started any threads that I can recall.
No more divergence here, though... Sorry.
With Love
n

a reply to: scorpio84


Lets start this over and lets take it slow and stick to very specific point.

Do you believe that your world view has a strong enough of foundation to claim that humans can acquire knowledge? If the answer is yes, what is the definition of knowledge you are using?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: scorpio84


Lets start this over and lets take it slow and stick to very specific point.

Do you believe that your world view has a strong enough of foundation to claim that humans can acquire knowledge? If the answer is yes, what is the definition of knowledge you are using?

First of all, I'm agnostic - so good luck trying to pinpoint my "beliefs." Second of all, I will redirect you to the OP. Since you like to stick to the point, try sticking to the point of this thread. What is your belief about God (other than He exists). You are Christian - but do you believe in predestination or not? If you are going to insist on turning this back on me, you are committing an error. Furthermore, I have answered all of your questions. You make the claim that God exists - so defend it. Really - trying to bait me into a Socratic dialogue?

I realize you are a bit dense, so I'll explain the purpose of this thread once more: to show how belief in (your) God is irrational. What do you believe about your God?

If you cannot answer those questions, then stop wasting my time. Feel free to re-read all my previous replies to you as they explain:

-why your argument is false
-what my position is
-why belief in a deity is illogical
-the difference between "illogical" and "wrong"
-why we should not assume that the universe is designed
-contradictions to the assumption that the future is like the past
-several logical fallacy terms you were probably not aware of, but commit repeatedly

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss

Link me to your thread in the philosophy section and I'd be glad to participate. I like your ideas very much, but they don't belong in this particular thread. It's just distracting.

Sorry, but I don't know what thread to which you refer.
If you can focus me, maybe, but I haven't started any threads that I can recall.
No more divergence here, though... Sorry.
With Love
n

Then start one.

Klassified and Ghost. I get what you are saying and there's a fair amount of "but" and "if" in there. Bottom line. Prove there isn't a god/afterlife. That's all, just prove it, or not. I'll take either.

originally posted by: intrepid
Klassified and Ghost. I get what you are saying and there's a fair amount of "but" and "if" in there. Bottom line. Prove there isn't a god/afterlife. That's all, just prove it, or not. I'll take either.

Prove we aren't really just 2 dimensional objects being studied under a glass bowl.

It isn't that it is impossible that God exists - it's just illogical to believe so.

originally posted by: scorpio84

originally posted by: intrepid
Klassified and Ghost. I get what you are saying and there's a fair amount of "but" and "if" in there. Bottom line. Prove there isn't a god/afterlife. That's all, just prove it, or not. I'll take either.

Prove we aren't really just 2 dimensional objects being studied under a glass bowl.

Is that Heisenberg?

It isn't that it is impossible that God exists - it's just illogical to believe so.

I have said nothing more or less. I'm still waiting for someone to sell me. No sellers yet.

originally posted by: intrepid
Klassified and Ghost. I get what you are saying and there's a fair amount of "but" and "if" in there. Bottom line. Prove there isn't a god/afterlife. That's all, just prove it, or not. I'll take either.

The burden of proof isn't up the the skeptic. You cannot possibly accept that anything position is valid, but only until proven false. Unfalsifiable claims are empty claims that provide no substance to anything.

Prove to me that there isn't invisible unicorns floating around earth that are undetectable by man-made devices? Does it mean that your position that "there isn't invisible unicorns floating around earth that are undetectable by man-made devices" is irrational? No, because there is nothing to suggest that there is invisible unicorns floating around earth that are undetectable by man-made devices exist.

Thus, having no belief in something that is unfalsifiable is perfectly rational.

a reply to: intrepid

Is that Heisenberg?

No idea, I just made it up. It's possible someone else made it up before me.

a reply to: scorpio84

First of all, I'm agnostic - so good luck trying to pinpoint my "beliefs."

I am simply trying to have a conversation. Are you just here to argue or to you actually want to discuss something?

Furthermore, I have answered all of your questions. You make the claim that God exists - so defend it. Really - trying to bait me into a Socratic dialogue?

I understand you think you answered my questions, but you didn't that is why I changed it to one question at a time. Yes I made the claim God exists, and it is my claim. You are attempting to dictate the way I must present my claim by trying to force me to argue in the order you want me to. A order that is not logical mind you. I explained to you in my first post that I feel that trying to get you to trust in a specific God before you see there is need for a Creator is illogical. I am trying to explain my position to you, while at the same time asking you questions to understand your position I am not baiting you into anything. My progression to Christ was not Christ is God therefore God is real. If you want me to defend my position you are going to have to have a discussion with me first about what we both believe about certain things.

You are Christian - but do you believe in predestination or not?

I do not believe in predestination, though I do believe God is omniscient.

What do you believe about your God?

Well if I had to pic a label I suppose it would be a Biblical Christian. My beliefs are not something you can know just by my giving you labels. In order to understand them you are going to have to give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I am asking my questions to bring us to common ground and to shed light on why I believe what I believe. I'll refer you to the previous questions, and before you answer I suggest familiarizing yourself with the problem of induction. Bertrand Russell and David Hume have great writings on the topic..

P.S. If you want to run a hangout sometime we can do that so that the conversation goes more smooth.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
Here's more "facts" that "matter";
Plenty of atheists make the positive assertion that "God does not exist!"

Every Atheist I know (including myself) simply states that "there is absolutely no evidence that suggests a god exists.

I can accept that. Spend about 5 minutes on Yahoo Answers to hear all the rest of them!
They might make you uncomfortable, like an Islamic terrorist might make a Loving peaceful Muslim uncomfortable, but they DO exist!

In fact, we can observe how nature can form the very things that are claimed to be made by magic from many theists. So the evidence we see in our observations counters that claim. Therefore, we can claim beyond reasonable doubt that there is no god."

You are being exactly as disingenuous as the 'believer'!
And I'm being kind.
You distance yourself from the positive, no frills assertion that "God does not exist!", yet you come crawling around claiming that "beyond any reasonable doubt, that God does not exist!"
That is shameful!
Just stand up and admit it! *__-
The theist uses the same exact fractured 'logic' as Viagra for their claims, also, but at least they are being honest when saying that "God exists!" That is their honest belief!

originally posted by: namelesss
That is as liable to demands for evidence and support as their theist twins!

When theists make direct claims that their god has 'this trait' and creates 'this thing' then they are no longer making unfalsifiable claims.

That would not refute a 'God', but, possibly, only a particular 'definition/quality'!
Truth is NOT 'falsifiable'!
Reality is NOT 'falsifiable'!
If God is Omni- (logically consistent), then any and every positive claim would be true ("God Is ____!"), and every negative claim ("God is not ____!") would be false, logically!

Because we can see how two traits (such as being all powerful while also being all knowing) cannot exist because they cannot overpower one another; it becomes a logical fallacy.

Nope.
Just because you cannot perceive/imagine something does not make it a fallacy.
One can certainly be all knowing and all present and all 'powerful' (whatever that means) and all EVERYTHING, at exactly the same moment, with no 'fallacy' involved!
Is the ocean warm and cold at the same time?
Exactly!
It's just a matter of Perspective, which way you are facing, what 'feature' you are perceiving!
Same One Ocean!
Sorry, no 'fallacy', merely your own limitations.

If the claim is that god created 'this and this' at 'this specific time' all that is needed to disprove this is to show that something is older than that claimed creation. It becomes falsifiable.
I make antiques while you wait!
That is a true statement!
If you need to 'falsify' it, you need to truncate Reality to exclude what disturbs you. You need to find a specific test parameter (stp) that would validate your Perspective.
There are 'stp's for all Perspectives!
I hate to be devil's advocate for the intellectually loathsome position of 'creation', but there is no way that you can falsify the hypothesis, for instance, that the entire Universe was not 'created', as is, one moment ago!
You 'created' with all your oh-so-meaningful memories, me with mine, rocks that will test out as billions of years old... Anyone that can create a Universe can whip out a few million year old fossils and billion year old rocks!
Absolutely unfalsifiable!
Because, actually, that hypothesis is closer to Reality then your linear hypothesis!

If a theists makes absolutely no claims about anything, and simply suggests "there is a god", then that becomes an unfalsifiable claim,

Which in no way 'justifies/falsifies' it!

and only then would it be illogical to claim that that god does not exist.

You equate the rickety scale of 'falsifiability' to measure and judge Reality?
A tiny concept that exists in your imagination is supposed to measure the Universe?
You must live in a very, very small 'universe'!
Truth/Reality/Consciousness is NOT falsifiable!
Truth/Reality/Consciousness is ALL inclusive, transcendental, and there is no 'other' against which to 'judge' it!
God is the Universe!
The Universe not only exists, but it is ALL that exists!
One Universe/God/Nature...

You are arguing against the only thing that absolutely fits the ultimate meaning of the term 'Omni-'!
Even that 'you' are a feature!

It's not acknowledging that that notion holds any substance or weight, because we can interchange god with any other unfalsifiable thing (such as interdimensional beings that are undetectable, or invisible unicorns).

Logically, scientifically, you and unicorns exist in the exact same place!
All with a 'definition', all that has 'identity', whether you or flying unicorns, exist in the imagination/ego!
All 'identity' exists in the ego! That's what it is, a dualism that identity can be imagined!
Without which, of course, we cannot Know Ourself!

a reply to: namelesss

Allow me to just sum up what you just said:

God exists because we think He does and reality is in our minds, thus our ideas/perceptions are reality, which means that God, as an idea, is reality.

More or less, right?

originally posted by: scorpio84

It isn't that it is impossible that God exists - it's just illogical to believe so.

Is proof what you require for something to be logical?

originally posted by: Giovonni

originally posted by: scorpio84

It isn't that it is impossible that God exists - it's just illogical to believe so.

Is proof what you require for something to be logical?

No. There is a distinction to be made between showing something is impossible and showing something is illogical. If a sound argument can be made, I'm open to it. I just have not seen any argument made that cannot be destroyed through reasoning - and any arguments made have, as far as I've seen, relied on multiple logical fallacies.

originally posted by: scorpio84

No. There is a distinction to be made between showing something is impossible and showing something is illogical. If a sound argument can be made, I'm open to it. I just have not seen any argument made that cannot be destroyed through reasoning - and any arguments made have, as far as I've seen, relied on multiple logical fallacies.

Do you believe the universe is infinite / eternal? How do you account for why something exists instead of nothing?

1). I believe it quite possible and am interested in exploring that possibility.

2). I can't account for it - the number or electrical signals going on in my brain is finite, so fully comprehending even the idea of "infinite" is not in my realm of abilities.

originally posted by: scorpio84
1). I believe it quite possible and am interested in exploring that possibility.

2). I can't account for it - the number or electrical signals going on in my brain is finite, so fully comprehending even the idea of "infinite" is not in my realm of abilities.

You believe it's possible, but what evidence do you have for an eternal universe? And if you can't account for why anything at all exists, then logically isn't it within the realm of possibility that the universe was created?

originally posted by: Giovonni

originally posted by: scorpio84
1). I believe it quite possible and am interested in exploring that possibility.

2). I can't account for it - the number or electrical signals going on in my brain is finite, so fully comprehending even the idea of "infinite" is not in my realm of abilities.

You believe it's possible, but what evidence do you have for an eternal universe? And if you can't account for why anything at all exists, then logically isn't it within the realm of possibility that the universe was created?

This (specific quote from wikipedia, but found elsewhere):

Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

originally posted by: scorpio84

Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.

This doesn't explain why anything exists at all, nor does it explain how energy began to "transform". A body at rest tends to stay at rest. Keep going... So far you haven't explained why nor how.