I will now prove atheists are illogical Part 2.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by jedimiller, Mar 25, 2012.

  1. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can make up stories too you know. :rolleyes:
     
  2. Prof_Sarcastic

    Prof_Sarcastic New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Cool story bro."

    My boiler once broke down, then later started working again. Miracle?
     
  3. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you pray?

    Did a mechanic come in and say it was irreparable?

    Always an excuse to deny ...
     
  4. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Those who want to beleive so badly will believe any and all hearsay.
     
  5. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Form 3rd link or at least a link on the 3rd link
    - Very roughly, they state that perfection is a part of the concept of God, and that perfection entails existence, and so that the concept of God entails God’s existence.

    from me- I don’t know about this seems to me something perfect might arguably have to exist in order to be perfect and that something real may be more perfect in some way then something imagined or non-existent
    But I don’t thick something perfect has to exist because you can imagine something and slap a label of perfect on it or that something has to be perfect to exist
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really .. what was my original position and what is it now ?

    .

    I did not claim that the evidence for Jesus and Zues were exactly the same.
    I have not even mentioned Jesus.

    The claim, same claim that it has always been, is that the evidence for God (as in the God of Abraham not a man that walked the earth) is based on stories from the past.

    There are stories about the God of Abraham interacting with people, stories about the Greek Gods interacting with people, Egyptian Gods, Sumerian Gods, Hindoo Gods, the Islamic God, the Mormon God .. on and on.

    Are some of these stories more believable that others ? Sure.

    Is the story of Muhammad or Joseph Smith more valid than the story of Moses ?

    Are all of these stories "evidence" that God really might have interacted with people? .. Sure.

    Are any of these stories proof ? No

    What so hard do get here ?
     
  7. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My criticism of the teleological argument and watch maker version is going to take me a while

    But saying the universe is complex so it likely has purpose from a more complex god who itself has no purpose that itself would be less likely to exist then the universe, doesn’t seem to hold water
     
  8. Ideologue

    Ideologue New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You seem to base this stream of logic on the premise that all creation must be phenomenological, which is a falsehood. You're also using the word "atheist" incorrectly.
     
  9. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why you are Christian ... Go.

    We've all heard the melodrama about how you are always misquoted, and how, gosh dern it, people just don't like you! I mean why, you are never wrong!

    Who wants to debate with a guy that cannot even be honest about his own opinions? Quite frankly, how CAN you debate someone like that?
     
  10. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But the alterantive that the universe simply created itself by ... accident ... does?
     
  11. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lack of reading comprehension is strong with this one.

    Where in my post do you find it stated or inferred that Muhammad or Joseph claimed to be God ?

    Perhaps you should start to consider re-taking kindergarden !
     
  13. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yep, reading comprehnsion going back to the definition of the Abrahamic faiths ... whom all worship the same God. Yet you make delineations ... for the multiple Gods which are actually one.

    And then jump to Prophets!

    Well, we know you are the real Prophet of God - so good luck founding your own religion!

    Perhaps you should stop smoking weed or whatever it is that is blocking your short term memory processes!
     
  14. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It’s as or more likely.
    The universe is the way it is because that’s how things are.

    Is more simplified then the universe is the way it is because god was the way it needed to be to make it the way it is because that’s how things are

    it’s not impossible for god to exist and make the universe for a purpose of its own

    But it’s not necessary and it’s just as unlikely the right kind of god would just happen to exist to make us. So as an argument that god must exist or is more likely to exist the teleological argument fails

    While still happily for you not disproving god
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The topic is stories about God and whether one is more valid than the other. These stories come from Prophets such as the ones mentioned and from other places about other Gods.

    In the case of Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and Moses .. same God but different stories.

    Do you believe all the stories about the God of Abraham and stories about other Gods ?
     
  16. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And why would I disprove God?
     
  17. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow three different Prophets have three different stories! What a shock!!!

    Guess that means the Abrahamic God is the same as ... Gods plural. Certainly explains your Christianity.
     
  18. Jonsa

    Jonsa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    39,871
    Likes Received:
    11,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the % of those prayers "answered" is vanishingly small.

    How about all those people who go to the televised prayer meeting and somebody like Ernest Ansley or Bennie Hin supposedly heals people with all kinds of afflictions thru prayer. Are those miracles, and if so, how come there is absolutely no verifiable evidence of the efficacy of this approach?
     
  19. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because it works on faith, not science.

    So, because YOU don't control them, they are not real?
     
  20. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are plenty of stories about Gods other than the God of Abraham.

    The question is what is the validity of these stories ?

    Do you think some are more valid than others ?
     
  21. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello Neutral, hello forum. The theology of miracles is fascinating, the question is do they occur today aka the church age? Briefly speaking I feel that the age or miracles ended or slowed dramatically with the close of new testament age Milena ago. Today we are in what many theologians call the church age. I agree and I feel that Christians are expected to manifest Gods supernatural will on earth by our own hands and minds. That would include much prayer, and manual labor ie voting for a christian orientated candidate in political office, constructing more churches etc. In theology we speak of the different ages ie the new testament age the Apostolic age, the church age, the ages are distinct slices of time, circumstance and of prophesied events etc. So what I am saying is that I am very cautious in discerning miracle from wishful thinking etc. I know that the trend is towards charismatics which are the larges growing Christian movement, and my words will not set well with them! ha ha...no one likes their cheese swiped, not even by another (church) mouse! I simply think at this time the human race must make due with less gifts from God in the form of miracles. I am not saying they can not occur, just that they are far, far FAR less common. We have been given something far greater, the ability to achieve the supernatural will of God via prayer and being a remote agent for God in the temporal universe.

    My beliefs were molded by education, life events, revelation, etc but one of the greatest influences was the doctrine of teachers such as Thomas R. Edgar, a Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis now in Maryland. I had the pleasure of his tutelage years ago in TX. I have not read the book below however I understand it covers the topic that I mentioned in this reply.

    Amazon.com: Miraculous Gifts Are They for Today ...www.amazon.com › ... › Humanities › Religious Studies
    Amazon.com: Miraculous Gifts Are They for Today? (9780872131330): Thomas R. Edgar: Books.

    reva
     
  22. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well the way I look at it is that God is perfect in his own domain, the eternal heaven. Our universe is created, finite system that must obey physical rules precisely because it is temporal etc. We often perceive those rules, such as the entropy as imperfection. So you see now that God can indeed be perfect in his domain but has chosen not to in ours, our temporal universe.

    reva
     
  23. fishmatter

    fishmatter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think atheism and anger at organized religion are two different things. All atheism entails (and it's not very much at all) is that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any gods. And that's about it.

    Even if you're a believer it's entirely possible to be disgusted by what you see as a perversion of true faith by the moneyed televangelists, or the seemingly endless new reports of child abuse in the Catholic church. But I don't think there are many atheists who are completely blind to the good things organized religion is also responsible for. I'm certainly not. I just don't think there's anything positive that religion does for people that could be accomplished without believing in a deity.

    Adding half-baked descriptions of what astrophysicists are up to doesn't help things. Using words like "created" further muddies the waters because nobody is implying the kind of conscious creation attributed to the Christian god. Descriptions of the big bang are attempts to describe the fundamental properties of matter, energy, space, and time. And the further back in time we go the more difficult things become. But not having a complete answer doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't add credence to the creation beliefs held by religious people.

    Finally, not every scientist working on this stuff is an atheist. Not by a long shot. Scientific study by no means precludes religious belief. There's really nothing science can say about the existence of any god except there isn't any. But this doesn't mean there isn't a god - it just means science is ill-equipped to form any opinion about something which is supposed to exist outside the natural world.
     
  24. fishmatter

    fishmatter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    718
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Actually, this is far from given. In order to have any kind of opinion about the nature of "nothing" and the way it behaves (do things spring from it unannounced or is it totally inert, unable to produce the slightest thing at all?) you need to properly define it and then observe it.

    So what do you mean by "nothing"? Is an empty room enough? No, the air molecules are still there. Maybe a perfect vacuum then? No, if it's anywhere in this neighborhood there are billions of particles rushing through it every second. Maybe if you could shield it? But then it still contains the dimensions it occupies - the length, width and height are definitely still there so it's hard to call it "nothing."

    You see where I'm going? Nobody has ever seen "nothing." It's a convenient label to use in these arguments but it's not possible to claim any knowledge about what it can or can't do. And while the idea that something cannot come from nothing might make sense intuitively we know far too many things about the way things work are completely counter-intuitive to rely on intuition when forming this argument.

    All we've ever witnessed is reorganization of pre-existing stuff. No act of physical creation ever involves the procurement of new atoms out of thin air. In fact the only act of creation that seems to involve such work is the kind hypothesized by religious people. Scientists aren't so bold as to make the kind of absolute claims about origins religious people do. They're struggling to figure out what happened based on whatever evidence remains and nobody thinks we're close to any kind of theory of everything.
     
    Nullity and (deleted member) like this.
  25. stig42

    stig42 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you missunderstand me im just asuming as a beliver you would be happy that even if that argument dosent prove god must be or is more likely to be that dosent mean their must not be a god either
     

Share This Page