Re: Nonbelief & Peek-A-Boo...

Video Cam Direct Upload

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• jesus
• god
• christ
• christianity
• atheist
• atheism
• science
• morality
• faith
• islam
• adolf
• debate
• religion
• creation
• evolution
• que

[Category120]

@evangelical1 If God literally showed himself to every single person through sight or the sound of his voice or any means not doubt-able in any way, that would be proof without argument. Yet he fails to do this. This is exactly what TheoreticalBS was talking about. An argument might "persuade" someone that God exists, but it by no means proves that he exists. For it to be proof there must be ABSOLUTELY no doubt-ability. And yet Atheism flourishes...

[evangelical1]

@Category120 Ok, I guess in that sense there could potentially be proof without argument. But atheism seems to flourish on the basis of ignorance on the part of the atheist not on account of lack of real doubtability. In my experience, atheists are atheists either because they have misunderstood the attributes of God or because they have misunderstood (or,are unaware) of the modal ontological argument.

[Category120]

@evangelical1 You say it is possible to know that God exists through your arguments. If I was deaf and illiterate, could you prove to me that God exists WITHOUT your arguments?

[evangelical1]

@Category120 I'm not sure what you mean by "proof without argument". I don't think the concept is coherent.

[evangelical1]

@tiggster13 Everyone has access to common human reason. If they use this reason it will lead them ultimately to God if they are willing to follow the evidence where it leads. This is possible in the absence of an apologist formally teaching such persons the classical arguments. But this is academic. Apparently you yourself have heard the arguments. What have you yourself done with them? And you have had the oppurtunity to read the Bible. What have you done with this oppurtunity?

[evangelical1]

@tiggster13 The arguments of classical apologetics take what is painfully obvious and flesh out the implications of said data. While it certainly is possible for a person to not have connected all the dots, and also disbelieve in God, it is not possible for a rational person who follows the evidence where it leads in an honest and unbiased way to be ignorant of God's existence.

[Category120]

@evangelical1 Also, if it is even possible for people to be unaware of the arguments for God's existence, it is evidence against God. Why would an all-powerful God that wants everyone to be saved (according to 1 Timothy 2:4) not show himself to everyone? Again, not because of Free Will because knowledge does not negate choice. The most coherent answer is because that God does not exist.

[Category120]

@evangelical1 While there are many ignorant atheists (I agree), there are also many Christians ignorant of their own beliefs. Unfortunately this has nothing to do with our argument. What matters are the actual evidences and arguments for each side. You must understand that it is up to you to prove there IS a God, not me to prove there ISN'T one. And since you have agreed that it is possible that God could show himself to everyone, you have supported my argument.

[Skelros]

he has the looks and everything :D

[MrLittletomdj]

@evangelical1 I've already responded to one of your two comments. I've got to admit I'm totally stumped. I have know idea what your argument is. If you're not compositing God as the first cause & claiming that that being is uncaused, then (again) what is your argument? I can't think of any version of causality that isn't applicable to an analogy of physical locomotion. Are we talking about "first cause", "big bang", "God did it" or are we not?

[MrLittletomdj]

@evangelical1 Well you mentioned God a number of times in the video & your tag is "evangelical1" & you also made the claim that "we do know God exists". If you're not referring to the God of the Bible, what are you referring to? You say these arguments "prove" God exists, I disagree, but you've not defined what God is. Is it conscious? Is it supernatural, omnipotent, eternal or moral? If it's not any of these things, then I don't know what proposition you're arguing for...

[evangelical1]

@MrLittletomdj If causality is defined in terms of, say, physical locomotion, then yes, the pre natural would be acausal. But I see no reason to arbitrarily restrict causality in such a way.

[evangelical1]

@MrLittletomdj I don't recall saying anything about the idenitity of the supernatural cause. I guess that is you reading more into the argument than I. And, I agree with you and Philo that the supernatural agent need no longer exist.

[MrLittletomdj]

@evangelical1 On further reflection, there is another problem. Let's say that we agree that before the natural there must've been something supernatural by default (I think we can, for now). The problem is, that causality is a description of the natural processes. So prior to the natural, the cause needn't apply. If you then say well there can't be a supernatural dimension, you've destroyed the arguement entirely. It's a dilemma. You could also add other dimensions & ideas of causal loops.

[MrLittletomdj]

@evangelical1 I cant dispute it. So yes but, (ofcourse there's a but! I'm not here to agree. That would be dull! =D). I don't see how you get from a supernatural cause to the God of the Bible or Qu'ran. It doesn't even follow that the supernatural has to still exist after the event. You can make a case for a supernatural element in the Universe after this and work forward from there. But presupposing that is Yahwey(or whatever) is working backwards & you've still got all your work to do.

[evangelical1]

@MrLittletomdj So you accept that the cosmological argument is deductively sound as an argument to a First Causer?

[MrLittletomdj]

The Cos' arg' fails because all it argues for is a first cause which tells us nothing about the nature of the cause apart from that it is one that is supernatural.

The tele' arg' fails because you've not demonstrated what the purpose is. You have to identify the goal and work forwards, not your position & work backwards.

I've got no time for the ont' arg' at all.

They've all been refuted 1000s of times & thus are not clear proof. And because of this your rebuttal falls flat on it's ass. Sorry.

[evangelical1]

@Category120 I have done enough research to know all the standard objections to the theistic proofs. Invariably they are based upon misunderstandings of the original arguments, misunderstandings of science, very weak objections, etc. I am open to reconsideration if you have something better to provide though. If the arguments are sound then it is undeniable that God exists. That's the whole point of deductive arguments.

[Category120]

Even if the arguments FOR god were sound (do some research, they are not) it still does not hold that god exists. Just because someone CAN know that god exists (through your arguments), does not mean that they DO know. I guarantee that not every single person in the world has heard of your arguments (nor will this ever be true). Because of this simple fact, TheoreticalBullshit's premises are still sound and your rejection of them is not.

[upliftzippy]

:s oh dear

[obijan42]

@evangelical1 Let's, for giggles, grant you all your arguments. Now show where, in any of the arguments, does it point to the particular sub-cult of the particular religion you believe in? There are literally tens of thousands of choices here. And if you pick the wrong one, you broil for eternity!

[evangelical1]

@ampere11 That objection would probably hold for the teleological argument. However, with the ontological argument, remember, God is said to be the greatest conceivable being. It is greater for a being to continue in existence than to pass out of existence. And, the cosmological argument ends with a necessary creator. A necessary being can't pass out of existence for that which has to exist, but doesn't, is nonsensical. So that is how I know God is persistent, given the three arguments.

[ampere11]

I know this comment is way after the fact, but I can't resist. Your arguments, the cosmological, the ontological, and the teleological can all be granted. (I think they are horribly flawed, but I'll grant you them all as true.) How can you, from those arguments alone, know that god STILL exists? After all god could have started everything in motion and then ceased to exist. None of these arguments need a persistent god.

[kingsleykinglin]

Here's another reason why i don't believe in god.... no offense :D

[mordinvan]

@evangelical1 For a start, sure. They have yet to be dealt with adequately.