Debating Theism

a reply to: scorpio84

I'll ignore the fact that this is not a reductio ad absurdum, but rather an argument involving circular reasoning and non sequitur logic

It is a reductio ad absurdum you just do not see what I am asking of you.

Your proof for God's existence is to label "God exists" as an axiomatic truth. This is called, as I explained before, circular reasoning.

You misunderstood me again. A reductio ad absurdum seeks to show something is true by showing that when it is denied the following result that you are left with is irrational. So what I am saying is when you deny the statement, "God exists", you are left with an absurd result. It is not circular reasoning it is a reductio ad absurdum you just don't want to try and answer it.

Furthermore, the assumption that the universe is designed is just that - an assumption.

If God exists, then the universe is designed. The argument wasn't about design. The part about design was to show how the existence of a God is a rational justification for the belief that the future will be like the past. The argument was the reductio ad absurdum. When you deny the claim "God exist" you lose the ability to justify your belief that the future will be like the past. Your world view goes from rational to irrational.

This is a false conclusion, also known as non sequitur. An example that proves my point would be an ice pick used as a murder weapon. What was the ice pick designed to do? What was its function in the ice-pick murder? No need to answer, just think about it.

It is simply not a false conclusion. I did not say a design can only be used for its purpose. I said a design functions in a particular way. To break thru ice efficiently you use the pointy end. To break thru skulls efficiently you use the pointy end. Other ways a design can be used are irrelevant to the way it is designed to function.

Are you sure? Do artists always have a particular purpose in mind when creating something other than to put what is in their imagination into tangible existence?

No artist don't always have a particular purpose, aside from putting their imagination into tangible existence, but the resulting art piece is always meant to function as an expression of their imagination. Again you may be able to find other ways to use that art piece but that doesn't remove the fact that it was designed to function a particular way for a particular purpose.

Furthermore, as noted above, even if design indicated purpose, it does not mean that it would function as the designer intended.

The intent of the designer and the intent of the user are totally different things. If the design does not function as the designer intended then it is a bad design. If the design is not used for the designers intended purpose that does not take away the particular way it was designed to function it simply means the user is abusing the design or modifying the design.

is completely non sequitur (again). Furthermore, why are you bringing observation into this? Has God ever been "observed?" I will answer that for you: no.

I don't think you claiming it is a non sequitur makes it so. A design functions in particular ways and was intended by the designer for a particular purpose, therefore the unbroken design will work in the future as it has in the past when used for its intended purpose. Why? The designer made the design in such a way that when used for its intended purpose it has a desired result.

First, you are asking me to justify my belief that fire is hot. First, I could just test that by running by fingers through my lighter's flame. More to your point, however, it is because I have never observed fire to be cold.

Not quite. I am asking you to justify your belief that because fire was hot in the past, it will be hot in the future. Sure when you run you fingers thru that lighter it may feel hot during that observed instance, but why do you feel that gives you a rational reason to believe it will be hot next time?

This whole bit about observation has nothing to do with whether or not God exists - nor does it have to do with a designed universe or any of your assumptions.

It is one of the main points of understanding needed in order for you to see the point I am trying to make to you....

a reply to: scorpio84

Thought is the only thing not made of matter and has ability to affects matter

Conscious thought = Ability to comprehend existence

Unconcious thought still affects your brain function without you being aware of the thought

I don't understand the rest

I think it's because the universe seems material it's hard to comprehend but if we talk quantum physics it becomes easier

can u build on that ?

Like if u look at an atom u have particles (matter) the empty space between them would be what I call a thought - God - creator - it is opposite of what our physics currently can define eg 4 or (5) dimensions and universal law we comprehend

That's what I have so far
Let's see I just woke up I may add to it

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: scorpio84

Thought is the only thing not made of matter and has ability to affects matter

Don't forget about Gravity

Also, Photons and Gluons are also massless.

a reply to: Ghost147

Yes this gravity thing I would love to get into that conversation
it's the one law that is always mentioned I want to know why people mention it so Intresting

Funny enough I was going to say that
but I don't get it so I left that out

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: scorpio84

Thought is the only thing not made of matter and has ability to affects matter

Don't forget about Gravity

Also, Photons and Gluons are also massless.

...and energy

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: scorpio84

Thought is the only thing not made of matter and has ability to affects matter

Conscious thought = Ability to comprehend existence

Unconcious thought still affects your brain function without you being aware of the thought

I don't understand the rest

I think it's because the universe seems material it's hard to comprehend but if we talk quantum physics it becomes easier

can u build on that ?

Like if u look at an atom u have particles (matter) the empty space between them would be what I call a thought - God - creator - it is opposite of what our physics currently can define eg 4 or (5) dimensions and universal law we comprehend

That's what I have so far
Let's see I just woke up I may add to it

This has nothing to do with this thread - but it is an interesting topic. Would you mind making a new thread dedicated to discussing it and link me here? You just woke up - funny...my day is just winding down

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm honestly not sure why you can't comprehend what I've explained to you. Third time's the charm:

A reductio ad absurdum seeks to show something is true by showing that when it is denied the following result that you are left with is irrational.

As I already explained to you, the multiverse model defeats your reasoning. When there is more than one explanation for something, blind faith in one explanation is illogical. Furthermore, there is evidence and a host of mathematics backing the notion for there being a multiverse - and this is just one plausible scenario of a myriad. None of which involve a divine creator.

It is simply not a false conclusion. I did not say a design can only be used for its purpose.

Then you wrote "because" without understanding how it functions in the sentence. Your structure was Because X is true, Y is true. In your case, it produced a false conclusion.

Other ways a design can be used are irrelevant to the way it is designed to function.

So, now design is irrelevant to function. Got it.

If God exists, then the universe is designed.

So, if it is proven that the universe is completely random, will you become an atheist?

I don't think you claiming it is a non sequitur makes it so.

You are absolutely right - me claiming it being non sequitur does not make it so. However, it being non sequitur does.

The designer made the design in such a way that when used for its intended purpose it has a desired result.

Okay, I'll throw you a bone at this point and say there is a God and he designed the universe. This still leaves us with a sticky issue - which is that if an all-powerful being such as God had an intended purpose:
a). how is it things go awry with regard to that purpose?
or
b). is suffering part of the plan?

Either God is not all-powerful or God is a jerk. Take your pick.

Not quite. I am asking you to justify your belief that because fire was hot in the past, it will be hot in the future.

I have observed fire. Even if I hadn't - others have. Neither I nor anyone else has ever - or will ever - observe God. You do understand that difference, don't you?

It is one of the main points of understanding needed in order for you to see the point I am trying to make to you....

You are making as much sense as if I were to try to explain the fragrance of a rose by asking if you could tell someone had eggs for breakfast based on the smell of their farts.

Anyhow, I've just finished up a long day of work and replying here on ATS - so I'm going to kick back a bit. I hope someone else will come and explain things to you, because clearly I am not getting through to you.

To cap: Belief in God is illogical when that belief is based on something for which other things can be offered as explanation.

a reply to: scorpio84

As I already explained to you, the multiverse model defeats your reasoning. When there is more than one explanation for something, blind faith in one explanation is illogical. Furthermore, there is evidence and a host of mathematics backing the notion for there being a multiverse - and this is just one plausible scenario of a myriad. None of which involve a divine creator.

??? Multiverse theory is based on the principle of uniformity in nature. It does absolutely nothing to justify your belief in the principle of uniformity of nature...does nothing to defeat my reasoning brother you need to really focus on what I am saying to you.

Then you wrote "because" without understanding how it functions in the sentence. Your structure was Because X is true, Y is true. In your case, it produced a false conclusion.

You keep claiming that things are false conclusions but you aren't saying anything that would show that to be the case. I explained to you why it was not a false conclusion in the previous post..

So, now design is irrelevant to function. Got it.

Do you speak fluent English?

How do you get design is irrelevant from, "Other ways a design can be used are irrelevant to the way it is designed to function?"

A mouse trap is design to catch mice. However I could use it as a component in a Rube Goldberg machine. Now does the fact that I used the mouse trap for something other than catching mice change anything about the way the mouse trap functions? Does it change the fact that there is a board, a spring, and a lever? Does it change what it does at all? No the only thing that changes is the use of its functionality.

So, if it is proven that the universe is completely random, will you become an atheist?

If the universe was completely random I'd have no idea what to believe. Purple elephants could be flying around one day and the next I could be in the middle of outer space dancing with ten billion spice girl clones.....

You are absolutely right - me claiming it being non sequitur does not make it so. However, it being non sequitur does.

Circular reasoning...another baseless claim.

Okay, I'll throw you a bone at this point and say there is a God and he designed the universe. This still leaves us with a sticky issue - which is that if an all-powerful being such as God had an intended purpose:
a). how is it things go awry with regard to that purpose?
or
b). is suffering part of the plan?

Either God is not all-powerful or God is a jerk. Take your pick

Debates over then regardless of which option I pick you have already conceded the idea of a God....

I have observed fire. Even if I hadn't - others have. Neither I nor anyone else has ever - or will ever - observe God. You do understand that difference, don't you?

I have no idea how you think this relates to what you quoted above it...the question is how do you know the future will be like the past? It has nothing to do with observing God it is a question posed to you about your world view....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your inability to comprehend the things I explain to you is truly astounding.

Do you speak fluent English?

No, I speak it fluently. If you want to go on the path of thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks, then I'll pose a question to you: did you complete the third grade?

Multiverse theory is based on the principle of uniformity in nature. It does absolutely nothing to justify your belief in the principle of uniformity of nature...

Apparently, when I use full sentences, you have a hard time understanding me. Let me make it simpler:
Your challenge: explain the universe is designed without God
My response: It isn't designed and and even if it were the supposed "design" could easily be explained via the model of a multi-universe or any other number of models arising from string theory. You also evidently did not actually read the link I gave you on the infinite monkey theorem (or anything else I've written for that matter). I don't mind debate - but when I have to keep repeating myself over and over again, it gets tiring. Don't worry, I will recap at the end so it is simpler for you to follow along.

You keep claiming that things are false conclusions but you aren't saying anything that would show that to be the case

A false conclusion is something that is not true. Something that is true is something backed up by evidence/observation. I've already explained why your conclusion is false, so I suggest you go back and read again. If there is a specific part of the explanation you still don't understand, copy and paste it and I will do my best to elucidate.

I explained to you why it was not a false conclusion in the previous post..

That's nice. Your explanation was wrong - as is your entire premise. The very best I could afford you would be to say that while perhaps not "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, the fact that "God exists" is not self-evident refutes your claim that it is an axiomatic statement. Thereby, your entire argument - regardless of your challenge to me or what you are actually trying to argue - falls apart.

How do you get design is irrelevant from, "Other ways a design can be used are irrelevant to the way it is designed to function?"

Design is irrelevant to function. Your entire "the universe works a certain way because of design" idea is not supported very well when you admit that the intended function of a design can be used in ways other than its design. If there were a Creator who designed everything to function a certain way, there would not be fluctuations in that design. Are you willing to say that the Creator is not all-powerful or would you say the Creator is just stupid?

Now does the fact that I used the mouse trap for something other than catching mice change anything about the way the mouse trap functions?

This is like a straw man argument without the man - a straw thing argument, if that's even a word. Anyhow, to my simple rebuttal. Let's take a paper clip. A paper clip is designed for which function? To hold paper together, of course. However, you could use it in other ways such as holding a page in a book, holding small sheets of plastic together, etc. You could also actually unbend the paper clip and use the end to poke a hole in a piece of paper or stab someone in the eye. Now, if you unbend the paper clip - did you change the design? The function certainly did not stay the same as when the paper clip was designed. In fact, as I've demonstrated here, the function can be changed even without changing the design of the paper clip.

If the universe was completely random I'd have no idea what to believe.

Welcome to my world. When you admit that absolute knowledge is impossible, you are free to explore. Limiting yourself to any one belief limits the pathways you can take towards knowledge and understanding. Does the idea of a random universe scare you?

Purple elephants could be flying around one day and the next I could be in the middle of outer space dancing with ten billion spice girl clones.....

As crazy as that sounds - it could happen. It would certainly be more probable than your arguments being able to convince me that belief in God is the most logical choice.

Debates over then regardless of which option I pick you have already conceded the idea of a God....

Clearly you don't understand the idiomatic expression "I'll throw you a bone." The point of that demonstration was to show that even if we assumed God to be real, we must quickly deny that assumption based on the absurdity of it. Here's some more ways of showing belief in God is irrational:

1). God is the Creator
God creates via His will
Evil exists
God created evil
God willed evil to exist

2). Nothing existed before God
Everything that exists was within God
Evil exists
Evil was within God
God is evil

Anyhow, of course I concede the idea of God. Ideas exist. If your whole argument is that God is an idea, ergo a figment of the imagination, then I whole-heartedly agree with you. Anyhow, if this debate is over - perhaps you would like to actually address the OP. What is your concept of God? You are a Christian, so I already have a good idea - tell me your denomination and I will know for certain. Still, I want it in your own words.

It has nothing to do with observing God it is a question posed to you about your world view....

Oh, sorry - I usually like to stick to the topic and not randomly veer off-course without at least letting my interlocutor know. My world view is agnosticism in the truest sense. However, the explanation that I find to be most logical is Monism. Of the religions - the one I would consider most logical is Buddhism.

Your obstinacy in the face of clear rebuttals to your claims reminds me of the Bible-thumping proselytizers who would come to my university. They would quote various pages in Scripture to back up their claim and when I gave them verses that refuted their claims and explained the true meaning of the verses they used, they would just change the argument completely.

Your first mistake is it use something unfalsifiable as an axiomatic truth. That is logically fallacious. Furthermore, from how you argue with me, I think you mistake me for someone who doesn't have a clue about religion or the idea of God. I am sure I know far more about this subject than you think.

Since I do not want to leave this on a negative, I will again commend you for understanding that reading the English version of the Bible can lead to misunderstandings and mistaken interpretations of its meaning.

a reply to: namelesss

The purpose of a debate, other than 'winning'?

Learning.

Question: Do you question the validity of half the words in the 'English' language or are all those 'words' written in 'single' quotation 'marks' for a 'reason?'

a reply to: scorpio84

No, I speak it fluently. If you want to go on the path of thinly-veiled ad hominem attacks, then I'll pose a question to you: did you complete the third grade?

I am sorry you took that as an offensive statement, but it was a sincere question. I was trying to see if maybe a language barrier existed. I guess the better question would be is English your native language?

Your inability to comprehend the things I explain to you is truly astounding.

The same can be said to you man you really are not having an honest conversation here. You have not actually listened to what message I am trying to get across to you because you are so ready to have a debate. I came here for a good honest discussion not someone who ignores absolutely everything I am saying.

Apparently, when I use full sentences, you have a hard time understanding me. Let me make it simpler:
Your challenge: explain the universe is designed without God

That was never my challenge friend. My challenge was to show that you cannot rationally justify your belief that the future will be like the past without adhering to God. Do you see how you keep misrepresenting the challenge that I put forth to you?

It isn't designed and and even if it were the supposed "design" could easily be explained via the model of a multi-universe or any other number of models arising from string theory.

What you are doing here is a strawman fallacy. You are attacking an argument I didn't put forth. I asked you to justify the principle of uniformity in nature without appealing to God. That was the challenge of the reductio ad absurdum. The challenge was not to show that the universe could be designed without a designer that would be a completely illogical challenge.

Let's take a paper clip. A paper clip is designed for which function? To hold paper together, of course. However, you could use it in other ways such as holding a page in a book, holding small sheets of plastic together, etc. You could also actually unbend the paper clip and use the end to poke a hole in a piece of paper or stab someone in the eye. Now, if you unbend the paper clip - did you change the design? The function certainly did not stay the same as when the paper clip was designed. In fact, as I've demonstrated here, the function can be changed even without changing the design of the paper clip.

A paper clip is designed to hold paper, plastic, ect. When you unbend the paper clip you as an active agent put forth intent to change the design for a new purpose, or to be better or worse at doing the same purpose. The fact of the matter is once you straighten the paper clip you destroyed the original design. That doesn't change the fact that in each scenario a design had its purpose. let us say you designed the paper clip. The first design was designed to hold stacks of something light together. The second design was to make something that could poke holes in paper or eyes. The difference between this example and my mouse trap example is you changed the current design of the item to fit a new purpose. I left the mouse trap as was and used it in a Rube Goldberg machine. The design remained the same I just had a different use for it. The same could be said about your ice pick analogy. The design remained the same, the use was just different. Nothing changed about the ice pick itself in the breaking of ice or the murder of that poor person.

Welcome to my world. When you admit that absolute knowledge is impossible, you are free to explore. Limiting yourself to any one belief limits the pathways you can take towards knowledge and understanding. Does the idea of a random universe scare you?

No the idea just seems irrational.

As crazy as that sounds - it could happen.

And fire could also tickle. Or be cold. So why don't you play in fire seeing as how it could be the best experience of your life? Why don't you wake up fearing that you will fall of the earth due to a random flux in the gravitational constant?

Any occurrence in a truly random world is no more likely than the next. If that is your belief fine, but no one could live with those beliefs in reality so your own lifestyle would be what proves that is wrong. I am willing to bet you look both ways before you cross the street.

Design is irrelevant to function. Your entire "the universe works a certain way because of design" idea is not supported very well when you admit that the intended function of a design can be used in ways other than its design. If there were a Creator who designed everything to function a certain way, there would not be fluctuations in that design.

I think you are confusing two separate points. One point is a reductio ad absurdum based on the principle of uniformity in nature. The other point is about the nature of a design. A design is created for a purpose and with a particular function in mind. This is never untrue of something that is designed. The fact that designs can be modified changed or even used for something that is not of their original intended use does not change the fact that each time there is an active agent attempting to create something that will achieve a desired result. Without that intention something by definition would no longer be designed. If God exists as I defined him then by definition anything that exists in this world would be designed. Then I went on to explain how the nature of a design gives you a good reason to believe that a past occurrence will be like an unobserved occurrence in the future as the intention of intelligence.

That's nice. Your explanation was wrong - as is your entire premise. The very best I could afford you would be to say that while perhaps not "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, the fact that "God exists" is not self-evident refutes your claim that it is an axiomatic statement. Thereby, your entire argument - regardless of your challenge to me or what you are actually trying to argue - falls apart.

It is not you simply don't understand what I am saying to you. You are so focused on trying to tell me I am wrong that you are not actually receiving the message my words are attempting to relay to you. The claim that God exists is a form of argument called a reductio ad absurdum please tell me what you think I mean when I say that.

Clearly you don't understand the idiomatic expression "I'll throw you a bone." The point of that demonstration was to show that even if we assumed God to be real, we must quickly deny that assumption based on the absurdity of it. Here's some more ways of showing belief in God is irrational:

My point was thats not throwing me a bone that losing the debate. I am not saying I believe God to be evil, but lets say God was Evil. How does that prove that God is absurd? Saying God is evil is a logically valid statement. Now whether or not it is logically sound is a different argument all together.

We can take this slower if you are down for it and have shortened responses on more of the specifics.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I am sorry you took that as an offensive statement, but it was a sincere question. I was trying to see if maybe a language barrier existed. I guess the better question would be is English your native language?

Your condescending attitude knows no bounds. Are you asking this question because some of the vocabulary I use looks like a foreign language? It's all English - just some of it may be a little higher than a 6th grade level. Let me know if there are words you don't understand. I was an English teacher, after all.

My challenge was to show that you cannot rationally justify your belief that the future will be like the past without adhering to God.

The dumb thing about this is that you are incapable of following the OP and stating your particular beliefs about God. Not only that - you refuse to pay any attention to what I have told you. Clearly, a troll - as I've seen this behavior from you on another thread.

Justify my belief that the future will be like the past ...

as I've said already - my "justification' is observation
Why do I need God?

Fire will burn me - I know this b/c :
a). I know fire is hot
b). I've felt fire - and it is hot
c). Others have felt fire
d). Fire is something tangible

Where does God figure into any of this? That's right..nowhere.

I came here for a good honest discussion not someone who ignores absolutely everything I am saying.

Amazing, the only thing worse than your condescension is your hypocrisy. Tell you what, I'm going to save us BOTH time and cut through all your drivel - because frankly, I've already answered your points with lengthy explanations.

First, here's a problem:

You want to show how belief in God is the only logical conclusion.
You challenge me to rationally justify belief that the future will be like the past without believing in God.

Allow me to give you several ways in which your position holds no water and why you have no right issuing a challenge:

1). Saying that "God exists" is unfalsifiable and thus a logical fallacy
2). You are making the claim - ergo it is on you to prove it, not for me to disprove it
3). My OP is not interested in proving/disproving the existence of God, per se - simply the existence of your God. I may not prove there is no God, per se, but I can prove that believing in Christianity is illogical
4). You assume I believe that the future will be like the past - what if I don't? What if I were to tell you that each passage through time brings about change - that no experience is the same?
5). I needn't believe in God to learn from experiences...

We learn from past experiences.
We make future predictions based on past experiences.
God creates.

Really? Yet, that obvious syllogistic fallacy is what you are arguing in favor of.

I've tried to answer all your points clearly and with elaboration - but maybe the easier thing is to just tell you that:
a). follow the parameters of the OP
b). being condescending is the real admission of defeat
c). I owe you zero explanations - you made the claim (which I showed was irrational)
d). Ending the debate is not "conceding" - it is realizing the other party has no interest in actually thinking, but is going to keep on with the same drivel over and over and over again.

I am not saying I believe God to be evil, but lets say God was Evil. How does that prove that God is absurd? Saying God is evil is a logically valid statement.

^^this...LOL

You are Christian, but willing to go so far as to assume God is evil just to win the debate? ROTFLMFAO!!! Okay, okay...I will acquiesce to believing in an evil dictator God who thirsts for the blood of young animals and wants everyone to fear him with those who do not tremble being condemned to eternal torment.

Alright, let us assume God is evil!

*drops the mic*

All yours, Satanist.

a reply to: scorpio84

Your condescending attitude knows no bounds. Are you asking this question because some of the vocabulary I use looks like a foreign language? It's all English - just some of it may be a little higher than a 6th grade level. Let me know if there are words you don't understand. I was an English teacher, after all.

No I ask that because most of your responses seem to miss the topic of the sentence you are responding to so I thought maybe there was a language barrier.

Justify my belief that the future will be like the past ...

as I've said already - my "justification' is observation
Why do I need God?

Fire will burn me - I know this b/c :
a). I know fire is hot
b). I've felt fire - and it is hot
c). Others have felt fire
d). Fire is something tangible

This reasoning is fallacious because it assumes that which it is trying to prove. Are you saying because fire has burned you in the past, that gives you reason to believe fire will burn you in the future? If so, that is circular reasoning. The question was how do you know that the future will be like the past. So attempting to justify this by saying the future will be like the past because past futures have always been observed to be like the past is assuming that which you are trying to prove. Bertrand Russell would put it this way "It has been argued that we have reason to know that the future will resemble the past, because what was the future has constantly become the past, and has always been found to resemble the past, so that we really have experience of the future, namely of times which were formerly future, which we may call past futures. But such an argument really begs the very question at issue. We have experience of past futures, but not of future futures, and the question is: Will future futures resemble past futures? This question is not to be answered by an argument which starts from past futures alone. We have therefore still to seek for some principle which shall enable us to know that the future will follow the same laws as the past."

So you have not actually justified this belief. Why is it necessary? Your entire life is based on that belief. That was why, I said I bet you look both ways before you cross the street. I was trying to get you to realize that everything you do even typing on the keyboard assumes that the future will be like the past. If there is no good reason to believe the the future will be like the past there is no good reason to look both ways before you cross the street, or to believe that the law of gravity will hold tomorrow as it holds today. If there is no logical reason to believe the future will be like the past what reasoning would you have for looking both ways before crossing the street? What would be the reason for believing fire will always burn you?

The dumb thing about this is that you are incapable of following the OP and stating your particular beliefs about God

Wrong. You said "I will posit here that I can, without using science as a backdrop, prove that belief in God is irrational." You used God in a generic sense which means you should be able to show that a God concept itself is irrational.

^^this...LOL

You are Christian, but willing to go so far as to assume God is evil just to win the debate? ROTFLMFAO!!! Okay, okay...I will acquiesce to believing in an evil dictator God who thirsts for the blood of young animals and wants everyone to fear him with those who do not tremble being condemned to eternal torment.

Alright, let us assume God is evil!

*drops the mic*

All yours, Satanist.

Lets not put words in my mouth. I didn't say God was evil. I asked you a question about your position because I didn't see how your logic followed. You statement was, "The point of that demonstration was to show that even if we assumed God to be real, we must quickly deny that assumption based on the absurdity of it. Here's some more ways of showing belief in God is irrational: "

After saying this you presented an argument to say God was evil. I was simply trying to show you that calling God evil does not mean Gods existence is absurd....your statement is your favorite word, a Non sequitur.

originally posted by: Klassified
I would have to disagree with that, Intrepid. If we go by the strict definition of atheist, meaning a lack of belief in deities. There is no faith involved. Unless one counts a lack of faith as faith.

Is it knowable? If not it's a matter of faith.... even a lack of faith.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Saying God is evil is a logically valid statement.

I thought maybe there was a language barrier.

No, but I think there may be an intelligence barrier preventing you from comprehending anything I explain to you.

This reasoning is fallacious because it assumes that which it is trying to prove.

Assuming something it tries to prove is fallacious? Do you mean like trying to prove God by working from the premise that "God exists is an axiom?" However, as applies to my example, there is nothing fallacious about it. I do not assume fire to be hot - I know that it is hot based on experience. If it so happened that something looked like fire and it was cold, I would know that my thought about it being fire was incorrect. Saying that I know sticking my hand in fire will result in the fire burning my hand based on past experiences is not circular reasoning - it is called "learning from experience." Allow me to demonstrate the difference between our arguments:

Your goal: To demonstrate that it is logically absurd for God to not exist

Your starting premise: God exists and everything is designed

This is an example of circular reasoning, because your goal (that which you want to prove) is restated (albeit in a different way (god can't not exist vs. god exists - it's the same thing) in the premise. Also, considering you were trying to argue using reductio ad absurdum, God should not have been in the premise to begin with. This particular error is called a formal fallacy.

My goal: To demonstrate that fire is hot

Starting premise: I've felt fire and it is hot.

This is not circular logic. It is me proving my point via direct experience, unlike your attempt.

The question was how do you know that the future will be like the past.

I did some more thinking about this today, actually. My fire example only shows why God is not necessary - that experience alone is sufficient. However, come to think of it - I will change my stance a bit and say that the future is not like the past. It can be similar, but not the same.


Let's say I got burned yesterday and burned today. The fire would still be hot, but my exact experience would not be the same. Nothing stays the same - everything is in constant motion and motion = change.

Furthermore, I have a 2 year old. Now, when she's going down for her nap, she likes to stall by telling me she needs to use the toilet. Most of the time, she's bluffing. However, this is no reason to believe that she would be bluffing in the future.

Bertrand Russell

A known agnostic. I guarantee he is not arguing in favor of theism.

See, the thing about time is - it isn't linear, nor does it even exist in the sense of chronology. Time is motion, which as I pointed out above, is constantly changing. You want me to justify that the past is like the future without using God? Simple - it isn't.

If there is no good reason to believe the the future will be like the past there is no good reason to look both ways before you cross the street, or to believe that the law of gravity will hold tomorrow as it holds today.

Once again, we assume based on experiences. This doesn't mean we couldn't be proven incorrect. In fact, this happens all the time. While not an exact science, assumptions based on evidence still hold more weight than wild guesses (e.g. blind faith in God).

You used God in a generic sense which means you should be able to show that a God concept itself is irrational.

Darn, so I did. Of course, you could have just read past the first line and noticed:

Just post and give me your religion. If you do not have a religion or if your idea of God is slightly different from your religion, then make a post explaining what you understand God to be.

Of course, the answer to why belief in God is irrational is that belief is based on things than can be explained by numerous factors - be it by science, high-tech aliens, ghosts, etc. Nothing justifies belief in a god. It would have to be the case that a god were the only plausible explanation for something, which - guess what - isn't the case.

Also, you will note that I say belief in God is irrational - not incorrect. I have no way of knowing if the belief is correct or not.

Let's say you are throwing darts. Now, believing in God would be a bit like believing the dart you throw is going to ricochet off something and come back to stab you in the eye. Of course, such a belief would be absolutely irrational. Could it happen, though? Yes, of course it could.

which means you should be able to show that a God concept itself is irrational.

Let's be clear. It is irrational to believe in God. Ideas exist. If you want to equate God with ideas, then I completely agree with you - God exists inside your mind as part of your imagination.

Lets not put words in my mouth. I didn't say God was evil.

No, but you said it was a logically valid statement. I didn't say you said God was evil - you just suggested it as a logical alternative. Of course, if you really think an evil God is logically valid, then you may want to stop being Christian.

I was simply trying to show you that calling God evil does not mean Gods existence is absurd

Calling God evil is to show the absurdity of your belief in God. You are Christian, aren't you? Of course, generally speaking, I agree with you. Hence:

Alright, let us assume God is evil!

I'll leave you with a final thought. There are one hundred knives being thrown, all aimed at the exact same location. The time the knives leave the throwers' hands is the same. Which one will hit first?

Unless you are going to somehow do all the physics involved in making a prediction (which could not be accurate due to unforeseen changes - such as maybe a thrower moves to the side a bit suddenly) - you'd have to guess.

Furthermore, that guess would be completely random.

Do you get it yet?

a reply to: intrepid

Honestly, is there a point to arguing about whether or not atheism is a religion? Here is the only fact that matters:

atheist do not believe in any of the gods that have so far been presented as existing

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: namelesss
The purpose of a debate, other than 'winning'?

Learning.

I'd call that a conversation.
Debates, if you will be intellectually honest, require winners and losers.
Not everyone, necessarily, learns anything, but that is not the primary goal!

Question: Do you question the validity of half the words in the 'English' language or are all those 'words' written in 'single' quotation 'marks' for a 'reason?'

Go you speak hyperbolically half the time you say anything?
I use semi-quotes to indicate special emphasis, or a different meaning then is commonly understood, or a nuance, or a contentious usage of a term...

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Klassified
I would have to disagree with that, Intrepid. If we go by the strict definition of atheist, meaning a lack of belief in deities. There is no faith involved. Unless one counts a lack of faith as faith.

Is it knowable? If not it's a matter of faith.... even a lack of faith.

Yes, and I have faith that when I jump up I will fall back down due to gravity, this type of faith is defined as complete confidence or trust in a person or thing.

I have faith that somewhere in the world exists a diamond that is larger than the largest diamond we've ever found. I don't know this as an absolute fact, but it isn't totally unreasonable for that notion to be accurate. That type of faith is defined as belief not based on proof.

Religious faith is a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Atheism doesn't fall under the definition of 'religious faith' because the position is simply a matter of a lack of belief of god. Atheism has no doctrines and is not based on spiritual apprehension.

Therefore, Comparing (or implying) Religious faith to Atheism is simply inaccurate.

If you meant Atheism includes faith (as in non-religious faith) and Theism is religious-based faith, then saying "Theism and Atheism are both faiths" is incredibly misleading

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: intrepid
Honestly, is there a point to arguing about whether or not atheism is a religion? Here is the only fact that matters:
atheist do not believe in any of the gods that have so far been presented as existing

Here's more "facts" that "matter";
Plenty of atheists make the positive assertion that "God does not exist!"
That is as liable to demands for evidence and support as their theist twins!
Further, as there is no 'evidence' that God does not exist, it must be a 'belief' (the symptoms are present)!
Religions are the congregation of those infected with the same strain of 'belief'!
Thus, Atheism, for those claiming/believing "no God", IS a religion.

'Facts' are no more than 'beliefs'!
People feeling weak in their logic and evidence start spouting "fact", as if such an emotional appeal will carry the day.
It will, perhaps, among dullards.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: namelesss

The "atheist" does not go though ritual and or ceremony... let alone talking to or praying to a lack of belief

Pure Atheism is a complete denial of a possibility...

It can seem like a religion because "religionists" are militant on their belief...

and it is nothing less then a response to that