This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Lunch break ftw, gives me a couple minutes to post :)
Biggest thing that stuck out:
First cause, ok, makes sense... but then how do you go from that to saying that God is his own father, his own son, and the holy spirit all at the same time with that original proof?
Did I even once mention the Trinity?
I'm a pure philosopher for this debate. So far I have only defined God as first mover, primary agent cause, self-necessary, perfect is every respect, intelligent director of natural things to their ends, and that than which nothing great can be thought.
All those arguments are saying is that God, as defined above, exists.
The Trinity is a matter of faith, it would be pointless for me to argue it with you or any other non-Christian because you don't accept the same theological principles as I do.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
EXACTLY MY POINT! The proof starts with a definition of God, then shows that IF that definition is true, it must exist in reality. But, what makes that any more valid than defining God as a hamburger? Nothing.
The "proof" simply does not prove anything other than IF the assumptions are true, then God exists. So, prove that the assumptions are true.
Can you prove that definition of God is more accurate than defining God as a hamburger?
Definitions aren't "accurate" or not. The only prerequisite to using a certain definition in a conversation is that everyone knows what you mean when you use the term.
For instance, if I'm in a theological debate with a Muslim (I'm Catholic remember), we're both going to mean different things by the word "God." Neither is "accurate"; we could both just have easily used "flibbertyjibbit."
Whether you use the word "God" differently than me has no bearing on the argument itself as long as I've made sure you understand how I use it.
Post by
MyTie
Can you prove that definition of God is more accurate than defining God as a hamburger?
Language has many barriers, and faces many challenges. However, in order for language to work, certain ideas, feelings, and understandings have to be attached to symbols in the case of text, or sounds in the case of speech. Individuals can ascribe any meaning they would like to any word, but for successful communication, the meanings ascribed should be close to the meanings used by the rest of the society employing the same language.
There are generally accepted attributes ascribed to the word "God", and there are generally accepted attributes ascribed to a hamburger. Allow me to demonstrate a few belonging to one but not the other:
GOD
Omnipotent
Omipresent
Omnibenevolent
Alpha Creater (disputed by many religions)
HAMBURGER
Meaty
Delicious
Optional Condiments
A Meal
My final point, is that pointing out flaws in humanity's forms of communication does NOT make any sort of arguement for or against God. All you are doing is being arguementative, and making yourself look foolish.
Seriously? God vs Hamburger? That's a new one.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I love how you keep glazing over the important parts of my posts ... to reiterate:
The "proof" simply does not prove anything other than IF the assumptions are true, then God exists. So, prove that the assumptions are true.
Do that and maybe you can prove god exists. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of meaningless logic exercises and proves nothing. This was presented as proof that God exists .. so you need given facts to start with, not "Assumptions".
TL;DR - It proves nothing.
Nope, it doesn't prove that
your God
(or idea thereof) exists. It proves
my God
exists.
When I say God, I mean TTWNGCBT. Who are you to say otherwise?
Post by
MyTie
Nope, it doesn't prove that
your God
(or idea thereof) exists. It proves
my God
exists.
When I say God, I mean TTWNGCBT. Who are you to say otherwise?
No one is going to argue with you if you want to worship hamburgers, dude. However, that won't stop us from laughing at you behind your back.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Nope, it doesn't prove that
your God
(or idea thereof) exists. It proves
my God
exists.
When I say God, I mean TTWNGCBT. Who are you to say otherwise?
No one is going to argue with you if you want to worship hamburgers, dude. However, that won't stop us from laughing at you behind your back.
I can prove that hamburgers are not worthy of worship. And thus it would follow that God is not worthy of worship. It is at that point that his argument falls apart.
Not everything that's true can be proven, but everything that is untrue can be disproved.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything however.
Post by
MyTie
I can prove that hamburgers are not worthy of worship. And thus it would follow that God is not worthy of worship. It is at that point that his argument falls apart.To prove that something is 'unworthy' of worship is unprovable, since the worthyness is an opinion. Fail #1Not everything that's true can be proven, but everything that is untrue can be disproved.The statement "MyTie had coleslaw last week" is untrue, however no scientific evidence in the world could prove or disprove it. Fail #2I'm not sure what this has to do with anything however.Nothing you are saying has ANYTHING to do with a religion debate. You are just rambleing out arguements that make no sense. Fail #3
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not even going to bother to reply. I don't care if you're out to get me or not. I think the fact that you're attacking points that have no relevance means you're at a loss.
Nothing you are saying has ANYTHING to do with a religion debate. You are just
rambling
out
argements
that make no sense. Fail #3
You haven't addressed a
single
one
of
my
arguments
. Try again.
Just because you can't make sense of something does not mean they aren't true. In fact you can't argue against a position that you don't understand.
And I might add to everyone else: I've put forth 6 unrelated proofs for God's existence, so if you are going to maintain that God doesn't exist, then you have to disprove all 6, not just one. So far Skyfire is the only one who's bothered getting into the Thomas proofs.
So until you have something more constructive to add than "you don't make any sense," I'll leave you be.
Post by
MyTie
You haven't addressed a
single
one
of
my
arguments
. Try again.
I'm not addressing the arguements that you cut and pasted into your post. They are fairly well thought out. I'm addressing the rest of the wierdness that you posted after that.
Stuff like this:Nope, you can't imagine an island of inconceivable perfection, for 2 reasons. First, inconceivable means that it can't be imagined. You post loads of false and contradictory statements mixed with strawman arguements. Take that example, I can imagine that there IS an island where everything is perfect. I may not be able to imagine what goes on on this island, but to imagine the fact of its existance is not beyond me. See how simple it is to refute most of the stuff you say?
What you are doing, is... well... let me give you an example:
Let's say you were to barge into a physics discussion in a classroom in MIT. You were then to read something brilliant that Albert Einstein wrote. THEN you were to start yelling at everyone that they can't prove the existance of baked beans. Then, when people try explaining that they CAN prove the existance of baked beans, you say they aren't addressing what Einstein wrote at all. That's kind of what you are doing, and it's a tad annoying.
Read what you wrote, and think about it. REALLY think about it. Does it make sense? I think not:Not everything that's true can be proven, but everything that is untrue can be disproved.
Post by
TheMediator
Did I even once mention the Trinity?
I'm a pure philosopher for this debate. So far I have only defined God as first mover, primary agent cause, self-necessary, perfect is every respect, intelligent director of natural things to their ends, and that than which nothing great can be thought.
That's true, you didn't, and I'm glad, because the trinity is just flat out silly and arguing it with people is just a waste of time.
Nothing you are saying has ANYTHING to do with a religion debate.
You're right, its a lot more philosophical - a purely religious discussion is just a waste of time; you'd end up just saying some crazy &*!@ that can't be proven one way or the other, and that'd be that.
Post by
MyTie
You mentioned that this thread is really a waste of time twice in your post, and you only typed two sentences in that post. I think you would rather people did not discuss religion. What do you personally have againt the discussion? I don't buy that it is a 'waste of time'. Discussing the origions of the universe and theorizing on a creater thereof seems like a reasonable expendature of time to me.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
73830
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
religions give hope, and faith gives you reason to keep going and to keep straight.
roflol
Post by
73830
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Discussing the origions of the universe
Except that's not what goes on in RELIGIOUS debates. How one goes from discussing the origins of the universe, to talking about something being his own father, is just ridiculous. It pretty much violates the whole "first cause" thing anyways, unless one assumes something could have existed always, in which case you wouldn't need a first cause to begin with. It just doesn't add up, one doesn't create the universe, wait billions of years, then spawn some humans, wait another couple thousand years, have a party, wait some more, kill himself and then resurrect himself, but having never died in the first place because he is God the father at the same time, and also list to every single dumbwits prayers every second ever. I would have expected that most people would have accepted that religious stories where gods appear before men and sort of mess around with society were just fictional stories to get specific points across.
I'm willing to accept that the universe may have been created by something - it makes 100% logical sense in a way to say that something caused the universe considering the nature of cause and effect, but I don't consider myself religious. Whatever it was that created the universe, I'm almost sure (notice how I didn't say that I know for a fact like you seem to know that some unfathomable being cares for your essentially meaningless feelings) that it hasn't interacted with the universe beyond that initial point of creation of the universe.
why would somebody continue on doing something with a low chance of success?
why would people do things that scare them?
This is part of why I think the term "Christian morality" is an oxymoron; tricking and threatening people into doing things and acting in certain ways doesn't make them better people. People should want to do what is good for other people in society because it is good, not because they feel they're entitled to some reward.
Post by
Skyfire
religions give hope, and faith gives you reason to keep going and to keep straight.
roflol
*shrug* why would somebody continue on doing something with a low chance of success?
why would people do things that scare them?
A person does not need religion to have hope or faith. Society might, but it is up to each individual person to decide how to get through the vagaries of life. Life itself (and whatever materialisms necessary) is enough of a cause to have hope or faith for the non-religious.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
