Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: The Theist Challange

  1. #1 The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Calling all theists! I want to bring forth a challenge. Come up with a GOOD argument for theism. There is ONE stipulation. There is a list of what is known as Logical Fallacies. You must come up with your argument WITHOUT the use of ANY logical fallacies.

    Good luck!


    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Calling all theists! I want to bring forth a challenge. Come up with a GOOD argument for theism. There is ONE stipulation. There is a list of what is known as Logical Fallacies. You must come up with your argument WITHOUT the use of ANY logical fallacies.

    Good luck!
    ok

    In regards to any knowable object, it is commonly understood that because of the way something exists it can be known in a certain way.
    For example heat and cold. Due to its nature, it is perceived in certain ways (i.e. with thermometers). If you want to know what time it is, you can stare at a thermometer all day ...yet you will not be enlightened.

    There is an epistemological great divide that separates all knowable things into two categories –those things we can control and those things we cannot control.

    Some things we cannot control simply because we don’t have the technology or knowledge to control them yet (as one bumper sticker reads “Earth First. We can mess up the other planets later”). So in principle we could control them. But there are some things we cannot control even in principle.

    For example the sun. In a physical sense it is vastly more powerful than us. Because we are conscious and can think however and the sun can’t, we tend to think that perhaps one day we might be able to control it. But if we are dealing with things that are conscious and in fact much more conscious than us, the controlled experiment would be irrelevant and useless. Imagine a being that is physically and cognitively much more powerful than we are. There is no way in the world that we can study them through a controlled experiment

    As a simple example , take an ant and a human. Because of my advantages I assume I am more intelligent than the ant – I can divert the ant – it can crawl on my finger – I can catch it and control it. And throughout it all the ant appears to have no real way to understand human anatomy (the ant is not thinking “I am now walking on the finger of a human sapien sapien”). The ant is more conscious of my arm than I am (aware of topography like hairs and freckles ). But in terms of knowing that it is an arm, that it belongs to a body, that it belongs to a particular body etc etc .... all this is beyond the ants cognitive horizons . Similarly there is a sense that we may know about the topography of the earth and can also launch a few substantiative guesses about the surrounding universe– but what is it? Is the earth part of a cosmic body (as socrates suggests) What is the earth really? It’s not simply different knowledge – Like the ant knows the freckles and I know the hairs - It’s not like lateral or horizontal variation of knowledge. It’s a different order of knowledge. If there are things /beings in the universe that are physically and cognitively greater than ourselves , we can no more examine such things in a controlled environment anymore than an ant can bring me into an ant laboratory.
    That is one aspect of things one cannot control, even in principle.


    Another is it’s not possible for one to have experienced one’s own conception, therefore one cannot speak with absolute certainty where one came from. When something is the source of something else (in the biological sense) it sets up an epistemological relationship (a relationship of knowability). If I produce something, I know what I produce, but the product cannot know. The product depends on me to become informed. If you have absolute truth as a god as the source of everything it sets an asymmetrical epistemological relationship (meaning that god can know us perfectly, being the source of our existence, but we cannot symmetrically know god like he knows us).

    In fact you design a scientific experiment based on what you are trying to understand because every knowable object is known in certain ways. So you design it around what you “think” will be the knowable qualities of the object.

    For example the search for Brown Dwarfs (stars that never made it – the minor leagues of stellar bodies). There was actually a theory that they exist but they weren’t discovered. So astronomer Eric Becklin built his studies around what he felt were the knowable characteristics of brown dwarfs.


    If we believe that everything has to be known through controlled experiments (bread and butter of empiricism), this limits the knowable universe to things that are less than us. When I choose a particular process to know, the very choice of a method predetermines the range and extent of things I can know. If I chose the thermometer as an instrument, that predetermines what I can know ( namely temperatures).

    Similarly if I choose as my primary method of knowing the controlled experiment I am predetermining that I will only be able to know things that are inferior to me (since that is the only thing I can control)
    There is something tragically comic about going out in the universe wielding the controlled experiment as the primary means of knowing and coming back reporting there is nothing out there but things we can control.
    And of course the self referential incoherence of “only those things known by controlled empirical experiments can be accepted as the definitely known” – the problem is that that statement cannot be empirically verified – if you tried to empirically establish the philosophical claim you would have a text book example of circular reasoning.

    The whole point of spirituality is to give you another method of knowing, not those things that are inferior to you and can be controlled by you, but a method that allows you to study things that are greater than you.
    For e.g. - suppose you want to get into a prestigious graduate school or trying to get a job in a particular firm that is extremely difficult competitive . There are books “the successful job interview”, “the successful graduate application” . And what is the common denominator? Trying to persuade or to somehow please them or impress them, to know what are their likes and dislikes, to somehow communicate “l will be good for you” “ I will please you “ etc ..... the point is that you have to satisfy them.
    Now if for some company that’s true , what to speak of god?
    How much more is the burden on us to make an impression on god? I mean suppose you entered an application interview for a graduate school and said “If you’re really lucky I may go here, and if you really want me, I’ll let you try and convince me that you are worth my trouble – go ahead I will give you five minutes” ... that’s probably not the best way.
    Yet with something infinitely greater than graduate school , god, some people do exactly that. Like, “ ok if god exists I’ll give him two minutes.... I want to see a flash of light some thunder ... go ahead god , impress me”

    So something is deeply wrong with this picture - it’s irrational because there is no rational connection between the methodology and the object one is trying to understand.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    All of his post summed up in one sentence as logical proof of theism verzen:

    The combination of that which barks and that which a sheep bellows...
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Where punarmusiko's quoted post (I assume) fails as an argument is where the assumption that "God" makes a difference in knowing.

    Also the assumption that "God" and "I" are not the same.

    The price for truth is uncertainty, something some theists can't deal with. Which is why they make up concepts to fill the void of the unknowing, just to ease the pain of uncertainty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Puna - Unfortunately, that is not a valid argument for a supreme being. It is you talking about some things you don't understand and labeling that God is the one that can understand of what you can't understand. It is an argument for ignorance in saying that since there are things that you can't understand, then the only thing that you can think of is God that could understand what you can't understand. Make sense?
    Argument for ignorance is a logical falacy.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Yes, the main theme of that arguement did appear to be that we have no idea about some things, rather that that there must be a god.

    If we are to assume that an unexplained event must be caused by god, then god stole my bike 2 years ago.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    #1. shouldn't it be spelt 'challenge'?

    #2. making rules so obttain the desired results, are we?

    #3. if you want proof, it requires 'faith'. if you want definitive scientific explanations andphysical evidence you will be out of luck. you will not get either for such would destroy the requirement of 'faith'

    #4. nicki cruz, a 60's new york gang leader used faith and gideon's fleece. when his prayer to God was answered he became a christian and an evangelist. the evidence you need to look at is not scientific but the supernaturalwork of changed lives.

    hiding in science and demanding your type of proof is just an excuse to avoid the reality. you do not want to believe. so be men about it and state you do not want to believe instead of conjuring up little games to play.

    #5. even if you were given the real ark as proof, you would not believe because your decision isn't based upon evidence nor honesty. its based upon preserving your selfish desires and your love to be in control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    #1. shouldn't it be spelt 'challenge'?
    How and why does that matter? I'm not a particularly good speller, but to attack someones grammar? Ad Hominem - Logical fallacy

    #2. making rules so obttain the desired results, are we?
    Not exacly. I am simply challenging you to come up with a logical argument for your reason to believe in God. If you have no logical argument for God, why believe in him? The only rule that I have is to think logically and if you think that is too much of a stretch for your mind to comprehend, then you are too far gone.

    #3. if you want proof, it requires 'faith'. if you want definitive scientific explanations andphysical evidence you will be out of luck. you will not get either for such would destroy the requirement of 'faith'
    The requirements of faith being a belief with no evidence for what you believe? You're right. Since faith REQUIRES you to not have any evidence.

    hiding in science and demanding your type of proof is just an excuse to avoid the reality. you do not want to believe. so be men about it and state you do not want to believe instead of conjuring up little games to play.
    You're on a foruim designed to debate. You are out of your league if you think that by me conjuring up a debate, you automatically assume that it's a little game that i'm playing. You are telling me that I am avoiding reality by asking for proof. That is a rediculous claim. The only form of reality that we are able to acknowledge is in the form of proof. Without science, we would still be living in the dark ages flogging ourselves and hoping for a cure.

    #5. even if you were given the real ark as proof, you would not believe because your decision isn't based upon evidence nor honesty. its based upon preserving your selfish desires and your love to be in control.
    We would have to find a boat the size of tennessee to house two of every single animal in the world. Do you seriously believe that a small boat made out of wood could possibly hold that many animals? My decision is based solely on evidence AND honesty. You're the one who is not being honest with yourself.

    *snicker* thinking someone 5,000 years ago could make a boat big enough to house two of every single creature on Earth... You're funny. You really are.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #2. making rules so obttain the desired results, are we?
    A valid arguement for theism would be one to persuade an atheist to convert. AS an atheist, I could judge the answers, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #3. if you want proof, it requires 'faith'.
    I have faith in anything proven.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    if you want definitive scientific explanations andphysical evidence you will be out of luck.
    OK then. No reason to believe then. After all, the original christians, according to the bible, had physical proof and so believed. Are we expected to follow the religion they made up without any, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you will not get either for such would destroy the requirement of 'faith'
    Why require faith? And why not justify the faith?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #4. nicki cruz, a 60's new york gang leader used faith and gideon's fleece. when his prayer to God was answered he became a christian and an evangelist. the evidence you need to look at is not scientific but the supernaturalwork of changed lives.
    Right. I was raised christian and turned atheist, does that prove there is no god?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    hiding in science and demanding your type of proof is just an excuse to avoid the reality.
    Strange, because you said there is no physical proof, so there is no reality in religion; only heresay and imagination.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    you do not want to believe.
    Irrelevant. I accept evidence whether I want it to be real or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    so be men about it and state you do not want to believe instead of conjuring up little games to play.
    I do not want to believe. There.

    Now, why do you want to believe so badly that you ignore evidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    #5. even if you were given the real ark as proof, you would not believe because your decision isn't based upon evidence
    no; rather, the lack of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    nor honesty.
    It has nothing to do with honesty. I believe in what I believe, for the reason that I believe it. So I am not lying, am I?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    its based upon preserving your selfish desires and your love to be in control.
    Hmm? I do not claim to be in controll of anything except myself.

    And is a non-religious life necessarily an immoral one?

    I'm a vegetarian, but I bet you eat your god's creatures. Who is immoral there?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I'm a vegetarian, but I bet you eat your god's creatures. Who is immoral there?
    You are. I tried being a vegetarian once for a girl and I got sick. I couldn't handle living without eating any of the protein I get from meat. My diet relies pretty heavily on the protein from meat, so I couldn't survive. Thus, by being a vegetarian and getting sick that automatically means you are immoral since you are a vegetarian. That means that not eating meat actually makes you sick.. I mean, Correlation is equal to causation right? ... Right?!?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    How and why does that matter? I'm not a particularly good speller, but to attack someones grammar? Ad Hominem - Logical fallacy
    your distorting andi was not attacking but correcting. big difference. since your definition is applied arbitrarily,and done by you everyone can expect to seeeverything they say be declared a 'logical fallacy' .

    sorry but without an agreed upon definition and anindependent party doing the critiquing, it is hopeless to present anything here. you will just dismiss it without thought or consideration. we are all wasting our time.

    You are telling me that I am avoiding reality by asking for proof
    yes because you know that God's ways require faith not proof. basically you are ensuring you get the desired results you want by designing the debate n a fashion that blocks the reality.

    I have faith in anything proven.
    but that is not faith. faith: things hoped for not seen. there is evidence for them, not a lot but the reality has not happened yet. if your child {if you have any} is doingillegal acts, yet you hope and have faith that they will turn their lives around and become good citizens--that is faith. it is hoped for and believed it will happen even though there is little evidence for it to take place.

    Why require faith
    because it shows belief and trust in God.

    I was raised christian and turned atheist, does that prove there is no god?
    no, it proves the devil was successful at leading you away from Him.

    why do you want to believe so badly that you ignore evidence?
    i already believe andyour 'evidence' isn'tcorrect.

    there is a right and wrong even in evidence.

    And is a non-religious life necessarily an immoral one?
    some non-religious people lead very moral lives BUT that is not what gets you into heaven. that is trying to do things your way not God's.

    I'm a vegetarian, but I bet you eat your god's creatures. Who is immoral there?
    ummm.... plants are God's creation (some even say they have feelings) as well so you have no argument there.

    vegetarians also have lousy rude attitudes. let me ask you this if you were invited to a meat eaters home,knowing there would be meat served, would you insult your host by offering to bring your own food or would you be a man and eat what is given to you out of respect for that person and his beliefs?

    keep in mind that a vegetarian diet is not holy and breaking it is not a sin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    I'm a vegetarian, but I bet you eat your god's creatures. Who is immoral there?
    You are. I tried being a vegetarian once for a girl and I got sick. I couldn't handle living without eating any of the protein I get from meat. My diet relies pretty heavily on the protein from meat, so I couldn't survive. Thus, by being a vegetarian and getting sick that automatically means you are immoral since you are a vegetarian. That means that not eating meat actually makes you sick.. I mean, Correlation is equal to causation right? ... Right?!?
    Noooooo! Such relentless logic!

    Someone give me a steak!
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I have faith in anything proven.
    but that is not faith. faith: things hoped for not seen. there is evidence for them, not a lot but the reality has not happened yet. if your child {if you have any} is doingillegal acts, yet you hope and have faith that they will turn their lives around and become good citizens--that is faith. it is hoped for and believed it will happen even though there is little evidence for it to take place.
    Different meaning of the word faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    Why require faith
    because it shows belief and trust in God.
    It shows a lack of intelligence; doing as told by a book.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I was raised christian and turned atheist, does that prove there is no god?
    no, it proves the devil was successful at leading you away from Him.
    What, my old friend lucifier that lives a few houses down from me at 666?

    How would the devil do that, then? Is he more powerful than god?

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    why do you want to believe so badly that you ignore evidence?
    i already believe and your 'evidence' isn't correct.
    You believe, but you resist reasons not to believe.
    .: you want to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    there is a right and wrong even in evidence.
    Yeah, talk to the fossils, hear both sides of the story.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    And is a non-religious life necessarily an immoral one?
    some non-religious people lead very moral lives BUT that is not what gets you into heaven. that is trying to do things your way not God's.
    Well, if god made me, then my way is god's.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    I'm a vegetarian, but I bet you eat your god's creatures. Who is immoral there?
    ummm.... plants are God's creation (some even say they have feelings) as well so you have no argument there.
    Hey, you're the christian, you work it out for yourself. I'm not trying to convert you to vegetarianism. hell, I don't believe god made them, so nothing to do with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    vegetarians also have lousy rude attitudes.
    Look who's talking.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    let me ask you this if you were invited to a meat eaters home,knowing there would be meat served, would you insult your host by offering to bring your own food or would you be a man and eat what is given to you out of respect for that person and his beliefs?
    I would tell them beforehand, and avoid the awkward situation....

    But I would choose appearing rude over eating meat.

    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    keep in mind that a vegetarian diet is not holy and breaking it is not a sin.
    You're telling me, the atheist, that I'm not holy? OK, I can live with that accusation...
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    your distorting andi was not attacking but correcting. big difference. since your definition is applied arbitrarily,and done by you everyone can expect to seeeverything they say be declared a 'logical fallacy' .
    I will only declare an argument as a logical fallacy if that argument follows a rule based on a logical fallacy. Trust me on this. There are arguments you can make which contain NO logical fallacies. Unfortunately for you, your entire basis of logic is focused on logical fallacies. It's sad, but your belief system is riddled with them.

    yes because you know that God's ways require faith not proof. basically you are ensuring you get the desired results you want by designing the debate n a fashion that blocks the reality.
    Wrong. I designed the rules to promote reality. Kind of like how the scientific method is built to PROMOTE reality within science. Logic is designed to PROMOTE reality in debates.
    but that is not faith. faith: things hoped for not seen. there is evidence for them, not a lot but the reality has not happened yet. if your child {if you have any} is doingillegal acts, yet you hope and have faith that they will turn their lives around and become good citizens--that is faith. it is hoped for and believed it will happen even though there is little evidence for it to take place.
    Wrong. Faith requires 'NO' evidence.

    some non-religious people lead very moral lives BUT that is not what gets you into heaven. that is trying to do things your way not God's.
    And THAT is why you are a bigot.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Calling all theists! I want to bring forth a challenge. Come up with a GOOD argument for theism. There is ONE stipulation. There is a list of what is known as Logical Fallacies. You must come up with your argument WITHOUT the use of ANY logical fallacies.

    Good luck!
    If there is a God you will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

    Next question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If there is a God you will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

    Next question.
    Appeal to fear
    You could settle for Wishful thinking as well. Why the animosity?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    If there is a God you will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity.

    Next question.
    Appeal to fear
    You could settle for Wishful thinking as well. Why the animosity?
    No you are using a logical fallacy there.
    Fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason.

    "Calling all theists! I want to bring forth a challenge. Come up with a GOOD argument for theism. There is ONE stipulation. There is a list of what is known as Logical Fallacies. You must come up with your argument WITHOUT the use of ANY logical fallacies."

    You said a good arguement and it is a good arguement, if you don't believe you wil burn in hell.

    It's like you saying come up with a good arguement for not mentioning to the biggest thug in a pub that his wife is ugly, and I say well if you do he mightl beat you to death.
    Then you pompously say "Appeal to fear - that's a bad arguement - I shall ignore it", and hence you tell him his wife is ugly and he beats you to death.

    The animosity is because of your stupidity in trying to convince people there is no reason to believe in God, and your poor logic combined with a self delusion of a good grasp of it.

    The idea that fear is a bad reason to believe anything is ludicrous, unless you have a propellor on your head.


    A: "Don't walk across that frozen lake young man you might fall through and drown"

    B: "Nonsense you old fool - Appeal to Fear - Didn't you ever do a degree in Phhilosophy like what I did?"

    B proceeds to walk across the ice, falls trough and drowns.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    No you are using a logical fallacy there.
    This'll be good. Ive yet to make a logical fallacy and be called on it and have the person be right about me making a logical fallacy. Name it. All theists think is that if something isn't logical to THEM then that constitutes a logical fallacy. This is WRONG and very untrue. A logical fallacy is from a list of what is deemed to be illogical arguments that people put up ALL the time. It is to help people better understand their own argument and it sure as hell helped me out.
    So if I am using a logical fallacy PLEASE NAME THE FALLACY. I am being nice to you by showing you what fallacy you are falling under. I expect the same treatment. And simply by informing you what logical fallacy you fall under is NOT a logical fallacy. It is a statement so that you can understand how illogical you are being.

    Fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason.
    No it isn't. Then you are only following God out of fear and not out of love. If you are solely loyal to Stalin simply because you fear that he will kill you, are you really loyal to him or do you just fear the consequences?
    Consequence of belief is another logical fallacy you are failing to understand.
    If claim X is true, then something bad will happen.
    If Hell is a real place, then you will burn in hell for your blasphemy.
    Very illogical argument. It's also following '3' logical fallacies in one sentence. That's amazing!


    You said a good arguement and it is a good arguement, if you don't believe you wil burn in hell.
    It's not a good argument because you are violating at least 3 logical fallacies within '1' sentence.

    It's like you saying come up with a good arguement for not mentioning to the biggest thug in a pub that his wife is ugly, and I say well if you do he mightl beat you to death.
    Then you pompously say "Appeal to fear - that's a bad arguement - I shall ignore it", and hence you tell him his wife is ugly and he beats you to death.
    That actually makes NO sense. That is a horrible analogy. A good argument for not mentioning to the biggest thug in a pub that his wife is ugly is common courtesy. You don't just walk up to a random stranger and insult them. It's not out of fear. It is out of respect.
    Thus, I created a valid argument without the use of logical fallacies by simply saying to act courteous and civil to others.

    The animosity is because of your stupidity in trying to convince people there is no reason to believe in God, and your poor logic combined with a self delusion of a good grasp of it.
    My poor logic? That is the funniest thing I've heard today. Infact, I shall make a poll.
    The idea that fear is a bad reason to believe anything is ludicrous, unless you have a propellor on your head.
    If I threaten you that a unicorn is going to use his horn to ram it in your ass on your way to work tomorrow, should you believe it out of fear that it MAY happen and so you end up skipping work?
    No, you wont automatically believe it. That is what the fear of hell is to me. If you believe in hell simply because you fear going to it, then it is the same as fearing to go to work tomorrow because a unicorn might stick his horn in places its not meant to go.
    Thus, appeal to fear is a logical fallacy. Your argument is working off of trying to scare the person into agreeing with you.

    So are you and archaeologist brothers or something? God damn, both of you guys have loopy logic.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    That actually makes NO sense. That is a horrible analogy. A good argument for not mentioning to the biggest thug in a pub that his wife is ugly is common courtesy. You don't just walk up to a random stranger and insult them. It's not out of fear. It is out of respect.
    Thus, I created a valid argument without the use of logical fallacies by simply saying to act courteous and civil to others.

    [
    Wow you are really bad at this, I will just take this bit in isolation as it stands out.

    Appeal to Emotion "to act courteous and civil to others" - that is you reason - you use a listed logical falasy as your reason.

    Are you real?

    It's like me saying 2+2=5 and you agreeing because you don't want to upset me - ridiclous!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by esbo
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    That actually makes NO sense. That is a horrible analogy. A good argument for not mentioning to the biggest thug in a pub that his wife is ugly is common courtesy. You don't just walk up to a random stranger and insult them. It's not out of fear. It is out of respect.
    Thus, I created a valid argument without the use of logical fallacies by simply saying to act courteous and civil to others.

    [
    Wow you are really bad at this, I will just take this bit in isolation as it stands out.

    Appeal to Emotion "to act courteous and civil to others" - that is you reason - you use a listed logical falasy as your reason.

    Are you real?

    It's like me saying 2+2=5 and you agreeing because you don't want to upset me - ridiclous!!
    WRONG. SO WRONG.
    Appeal to emotion is a fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including:
    Appeal to consequences
    Appeal to fear
    Appeal to flattery
    Appeal to pity
    Appeal to ridicule
    Appeal to spite
    Wishful thinking
    An appeal to emotion is if you claimed that drugs don't kill people and I say, "Your son died of drugs. How could you even think that drugs don't kill people when your own son died of drugs? Are you so heartless to actually believe that?
    That is appeal to emotion. I am appealing to your emotion of your sons death to win my argument.

    If you are actually going to debate me. I expect a challenge.. Please go home and study. I'll be waiting and anticipating that moment because I love debating. But don't accuse me of being bad at logic when you can't even name a proper logical fallacy.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    If I threaten you that a unicorn is going to use his horn to ram it in your ass on your way to work tomorrow, should you believe it out of fear that it MAY happen and so you end up skipping work?
    No, you wont automatically believe it. That is what the fear of hell is to me. If you believe in hell simply because you fear going to it, then it is the same as fearing to go to work tomorrow because a unicorn might stick his horn in places its not meant to go.
    Thus, appeal to fear is a logical fallacy. Your argument is working off of trying to scare the person into agreeing with you.

    So are you and archaeologist brothers or something? God damn, both of you guys have loopy logic.
    However there are few reports of magical unicorns ever doing this and that can be verified, but there are no verifiable reports of people not going to hell because we would not find that out until you die so you are using a logical falasy there you are comparing something that can be reasonably verified with something which cannot be verified.

    Boy are you bad at this, which appears to be your 'specialist subject'


    The propellor on your head must be a fast spinning one!! (that probably is a logical falasy - lol).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    An appeal to emotion is if you claimed that drugs don't kill people and I say, "Your son died of drugs. How could you even think that drugs don't kill people when your own son died of drugs? Are you so heartless to actually believe that?
    That is appeal to emotion. I am appealing to your emotion of your sons death to win my argument.
    Are you cuckoo? OR just trolling?
    Sounds like you are on drugs!!
    You are not appealing to emotion you are pointin out the fact that drugs were proven to kill her son!!

    You sound a it screwed up in your thinking, are you on drugs or mentally ill?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Read what I said up there ^^^^^ so you don't accidently miss it.

    However there are few reports of magical unicorns ever doing this and that can be verified
    Few as in.. NONE?

    but there are no verifiable reports of people not going to hell because we would not find that out until you die
    - Logical fallacy - Burden of Proof.
    When refuting a claim, you are not subject to provide evidence for the claim you are refuting. Nor are you required to provide evidence against the claim you are refuting if your opposition hasn't yet supplied evidence for their claim.

    so you are using a logical falasy there you are comparing something that can be reasonably verified with something which cannot be verified.
    Neither can be verified do to the lack of proof you supplied for your claim. Since there is no evidence for the existence of hell in the first place, you are subject to supply the burden of proof. You have yet to supply the burden of proof, thus your claim of me using a logical fallacy doesn't stand.

    The propellor on your head must be a fast spinning one!!
    Ad Hominem. In an attempt with your final statement, you try to discredit me with saying that I am in need of 'special assistance' within life. This is a logical fallacy do to the fact that even if I was mentally handicap that does not neccessarily mean the argument itself is wrong. You are detracting from the main argument to insult me.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Are you cuckoo? OR just trolling?
    Sounds like you are on drugs!!
    Ad Hominem - Simply because you cannot refute my logic with your own sequence of logic, you are not subject to insulting someone as your main argument.

    You are not appealing to emotion you are pointin out the fact that drugs were proven to kill her son!!
    By the MANIPULATION of her emotion. I was making her sad and drawing attention away from her stance on drugs in order to have an emotional display toward her son's death. This is a red herring since I am drawing attention away from the argument and placing it on her sons death instead. This is an Appeal to Emotion do to the manipulation of her emotions to do so.

    You sound a it screwed up in your thinking, are you on drugs or mentally ill?
    Ad Hominem.
    Now the question stands. Are you the one trolling?
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason.
    No it isn't. Then you are only following God out of fear and not out of love. If you are solely loyal to Stalin simply because you fear that he will kill you, are you really loyal to him or do you just fear the consequences?
    Consequence of belief is another logical fallacy you are failing to understand.
    If claim X is true, then something bad will happen.
    If Hell is a real place, then you will burn in hell for your blasphemy.
    Very illogical argument. It's also following '3' logical fallacies in one sentence. That's amazing!
    [/quote]

    Again nonsense, just because I fear God does not mean I don't love him.
    You have used aother logical falasy in your arguement.
    Just because I believe A does not mean I don't also believe B.

    Quite frankly I think you are just trolling as nobbody could be that stupid!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Are you cuckoo? OR just trolling?
    Sounds like you are on drugs!!
    Ad Hominem - Simply because you cannot refute my logic with your own sequence of logic, you are not subject to insulting someone as your main argument.

    You are not appealing to emotion you are pointin out the fact that drugs were proven to kill her son!!
    By the MANIPULATION of her emotion. I was making her sad and drawing attention away from her stance on drugs in order to have an emotional display toward her son's death. This is a red herring since I am drawing attention away from the argument and placing it on her sons death instead. This is an Appeal to Emotion do to the manipulation of her emotions to do so.

    You sound a it screwed up in your thinking, are you on drugs or mentally ill?
    Ad Hominem.
    Now the question stands. Are you the one trolling?
    Again completely screwed up garbage - the evidence is drugs killed her son that is self evident. The appeal to emotion is irrelevant, the evidence would be just as valid if it was not her son and someone she hated
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quite frankly I think you are just trolling as nobbody could be that stupid!!
    You have yet to come up with a valid argument.

    Again completely screwed up garbage - the evidence is drugs killed her son that is self evident. The appeal to emotion is irrelevant, the evidence would be just as valid if it was not her son and someone she hated
    Wrong. A valid argument would be me displaying the bad side effects of drugs and the chemical composition of what drugs can do to you in the long run mixed with numerous reports of drug overdoses and gang shootings over the sale of drugs. That is a valid argument. Simply stating that her son died of drugs is not a valid argument against drugs.
    Learn how to use logic... PLEASE.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Again nonsense, just because I fear God does not mean I don't love him.
    You have used aother logical falasy in your arguement.
    Just because I believe A does not mean I don't also believe B.
    If you state that fearing hell is good enough reason to believe in God, then you are not making the claim that you also love God. You are simply stating that you fear God and that is why you believe in him. You never made the statement that you follow God out of love for God.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    I never said you didn't both love and fear him. However I stated that if you only follow God because you fear him then you are not doing it out of love, but fear. The key word here is IF.

    I never said I only followed God solely becasue of fear you joker.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Again nonsense, just because I fear God does not mean I don't love him.
    You have used aother logical falasy in your arguement.
    Just because I believe A does not mean I don't also believe B.
    If you state that fearing hell is good enough reason to believe in God, then you are not making the claim that you also love God. You are simply stating that you fear God and that is why you believe in him. You never made the statement that you follow God out of love for God.
    I never said I didn;t love him either - you really are full of bull
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason.
    You just said that the fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason to believe in God. No where did you mention love. You simply stated that fear of hell alone is a good enough reason.

    I never said I didn;t love him either - you really are full of bull
    Because you stated that the fear of hell is a good enough reason to believe in him. You made the claim. Love was not in that sentence. I am not going to assume things that you do not mean. I am not going to assume that you love God when you JUST stated that the belief in going to hell is a 'very good reason' to believe in God.
    The reason I don't assume things is because it is a logical fallacy to assume anything in a debate. Unfortunately for you, you assume hell is real. Unless you state something specifically for me to debate, I will not assume that it is in there.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Quite frankly I think you are just trolling as nobbody could be that stupid!!
    You have yet to come up with a valid argument.

    Again completely screwed up garbage - the evidence is drugs killed her son that is self evident. The appeal to emotion is irrelevant, the evidence would be just as valid if it was not her son and someone she hated
    Wrong. A valid argument would be me displaying the bad side effects of drugs and the chemical composition of what drugs can do to you in the long run mixed with numerous reports of drug overdoses and gang shootings over the sale of drugs. That is a valid argument. Simply stating that her son died of drugs is not a valid argument against drugs.
    Learn how to use logic... PLEASE.
    Again bull****, one valid arguement does not mean all other arguements are false

    You can't think straight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason.
    You just said that the fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason to believe in God. No where did you mention love. You simply stated that fear of hell alone is a good enough reason.

    I never said I didn;t love him either - you really are full of bull
    Because you stated that the fear of hell is a good enough reason to believe in him. You made the claim. Love was not in that sentence. I am not going to assume things that you do not mean. I am not going to assume that you love God when you JUST stated that the belief in going to hell is a 'very good reason' to believe in God.
    The reason I don't assume things is because it is a logical fallacy to assume anything in a debate. Unfortunately for you, you assume hell is real. Unless you state something specifically for me to debate, I will not assume that it is in there.
    There can be more than one good reason for doing something
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    The ONLY arguments which I claim are false are the ones which use logical fallacies to prove their points.
    Good job troll, you have successfully annoyed me by your avid use of Ad Hominems and other logical fallacies.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    There can be more than one good reason for doing something
    And you never stated the claim. I am not going to assume a claim unless that claim is stated in the argument.
    Don't pin this on my logic since you did not make the claim to begin with. Like I said. I am not going to assume a claim.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason.
    You just said that the fear of burning in hell for eternity is a very good reason to believe in God. No where did you mention love. You simply stated that fear of hell alone is a good enough reason.
    I think this argument goes to ways, with different levels of logic:

    Premiss = If I disbelieve in God, I might go to hell (depending on his existence)
    Conclusion = God exists

    or

    Premiss = If I disbelieve in God, I might go to hell (depending on his existence)
    Conclusion = I should believe that God exists

    It is similar to an example my philosophy textbook gives for ad baculum fallacies (I am NOT comparing Christians (or God) to Nazis, just making a point):

    "Grunberger reports that, in pre-war Germany, the Nazis used to send this reminder to those who had let their subscription lapse: 'Our paper certainly deserves the support of every German. We shall continue to forward copies of it to you, and hope that you will not want to expose yourself to unfortunate consequences in the case of cancellation.'"

    It goes on to say:

    "...at one level, the argument is a prudential argument, an argument about what it is...prudent to do."

    But also:

    "It would be a mistake to reason that the premisses of this argument imply or justify...the...claim that the the journalistic merits make it a paper worthy of subscriber support."[/b]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    well this is an interesting discussion but i am not going to particpate that heavily. all i see this is an attempt to dismiss any argument for God and justify one's unbelief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    well this is an interesting discussion but i am not going to particpate that heavily. all i see this is an attempt to dismiss any argument for God and justify one's unbelief.
    Not at all, any valid arguement will be accepted.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    I think it is possible to come up with an argument for theism that doesn't commit any logical fallacies. However such an argument would at points rely on "gut feeling".

    The same applies to atheism. There are very interesting arguments out there that make a very good case (not the crap of Richard Dawkins I must point out). However again the arguments to show that there is no God also at points rest on foundations that simply cannot be supported.

    Both theists and atheists have to concede that their beliefs, or lack of, cannot be wholly justified by any philisophical argument alone.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    ANother point to mention is that burns can be extremely pain.
    That's why I don't stick my hand in the fire.

    Common sense really.

    I don't want to be a philophoser with no hands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Fear of burning in hell is no justification for believing in God.

    Think about it.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Fear of burning in hell is no justification for believing in God.

    Think about it.
    LOL You reckon?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    In its current form you're argument is basically stating Pascals wager. ie that it's better to believe incase hell is real.

    The problem with that line of thought is two-fold.

    1)It doesnt make any sense. It's understandable that someone could be scared of somethign they believe in. But it's not understandable that they could fear something that they didn't believe in. It seems to me that you need to believe in something before you can have any emotional link to it.

    You're analogy to being burned is a poor one, as we have all been burned or seen people being burned and therefor know that it is in our best interests to avoid it.

    But so far as any living man can say, none of us have ever burned in hell or witnessed someone burning in hell and returned to tell the tale. So burning in hell isn't an everyday occurance that can be compared with burning ureself on the stove.

    2)If somehow it is possible that you can derive belief from fear (thought I don't think you can), your belief is going to get you nowhere with the christian faith (which presumably you have). Christian belief does not come from a fear of damnation. Christian belief is all about believing in jesus as the saviour of your soul.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    I think it is possible to come up with an argument for theism that doesn't commit any logical fallacies. However such an argument would at points rely on "gut feeling".
    Then that would be Begging the Question.

    1 Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
    2 Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
    The same applies to atheism. There are very interesting arguments out there that make a very good case (not the crap of Richard Dawkins I must point out). However again the arguments to show that there is no God also at points rest on foundations that simply cannot be supported.
    Burden of Proof. We in no way need to prove that there is no God as long as there is no evidence for a God in the first place.

    Both theists and atheists have to concede that their beliefs, or lack of, cannot be wholly justified by any philisophical argument alone.
    Yes we can. If you cannot justify your beliefs with evidence then why hold those beliefs? I don't believe in pink elephants with oozies because there is no evidence for it. I don't believe that the world is made out of cheese because there is no evidence for it. Unless there is evidence that leads to a proper conclusion or FOR a conclusion in the first place then there is no reason to hold those beliefs.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen

    The same applies to atheism. There are very interesting arguments out there that make a very good case (not the crap of Richard Dawkins I must point out). However again the arguments to show that there is no God also at points rest on foundations that simply cannot be supported.
    Burden of Proof. We in no way need to prove that there is no God as long as there is no evidence for a God in the first place.
    Read my point again. I said "the arguments to show that there is no God also at points rest on foundations that simply cannot be supported."

    If an atheist says "I don't believe in God", thats all well and good. If he says "there is no God" he has to argue for it. He can argue that there is no evidence for god if he wishes, but that in itself does not show that god does not exist.

    If someone is trying to show that there is no god, a theist has every right to demand an explanation that an atheist would demand of them.

    That's all I'm saying.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    So if I would say that there is no dragon standing behind you, I have to supply evidence for my claim? And it's a logical fallacy to say that there is no evidence for a dragon standing behind you, thus it must remain a possibility?
    That does not sound very logical to me.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    So if I would say that there is no dragon standing behind you, I have to supply evidence for my claim? And it's a logical fallacy to say that there is no evidence for a dragon standing behind you, thus it must remain a possibility?
    That does not sound very logical to me.
    It's a poor analogy tbh.

    I've yet to meet any religious person who's belief doesnt come from within. They don't believe because they saw sumthing that can't be explained.

    But I shall attempt to answer your question...

    If I believed there was a dragon there, because say I could "feel" the heat of its breath I would demand evidence of you.

    The thing is verzen, you keep saying there is no proof of Gods existance and this is a point which can never be settled. An atheist see's the universe and see's a random occurrance, a religious person see's a creation. It's two ways of looking at the same thing.

    Until you can categorically say that the way a religious person looks at things is wrong, your opinion that there is no proof of God can't be used as an undisputable weapon against a persons belief in God.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    verzen basically has sethimself up as the king maker which is why i am not going toparticipate. he dismisses anything thathedoes not like and refuses to refute them. which tells me he can't.

    his rules are tooloose and general which gives him way too much latitude in his subjective judgement of arguments. inother words, if he doesn't like the argument or shown he is wrong, he just labels it and continues on as before.

    he has yet to refute my 'changed lives' point which tells me he can't. itis publically recorded and seen throughout history across international boundaries. ifthe Bible were as the critics say then such things would not take place.

    p.s.--you cannot make a sientific argument for or against the Bible simokly because scienceis too limited and the Bible is a supernatural book far above the reach 7 scrutiy of science.

    anyone demanding 'scientific' evidence or a 'science stamp of approval' is just fooling themselves and ensuring thatthey donothave to change their lifestyle as they have set up a false authority.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    330
    I think this thead shows the dangers of eleiving in some pompouos hig brow nonsense over common sense.

    Clearly this shows there is a major problem with this 'logical fallacies' crap.
    Something to be aware of because blindly followng that garbage over common sense could wind you up in a whole lot of serious trouble.

    It's basically a daaangerous mindless dogma.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    If I believed there was a dragon there, because say I could "feel" the heat of its breath I would demand evidence of you.
    While it could have very well been a vent in the first place and now you are arguing that a Dragon was standing behind me. Without first thinking of the plausible, you immediately go into the implausible.
    The thing is verzen, you keep saying there is no proof of Gods existance and this is a point which can never be settled. An atheist see's the universe and see's a random occurrance, a religious person see's a creation. It's two ways of looking at the same thing.
    Wrong. Nothing in the universe is random. Everything abides by laws. An Atheist simply does not believe in God. There is no scientific justification that is preset for an Atheist to not believe in God. Many have separate reasons to believe, but by saying that they abide by a certain code of belief. By using false claims in your argument, you are coinciding with a logical fallacy.
    Until you can categorically say that the way a religious person looks at things is wrong, your opinion that there is no proof of God can't be used as an undisputable weapon against a persons belief in God.
    That type of logic is what holds us back in thinking scientifically. The reason the scientific method was thought up was to combat people with this mind set.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    verzen basically has sethimself up as the king maker which is why i am not going toparticipate. he dismisses anything thathedoes not like and refuses to refute them. which tells me he can't.
    Or your logic is so messed up that I can't seem to want to waste my time trying to refute it.

    his rules are tooloose and general which gives him way too much latitude in his subjective judgement of arguments. inother words, if he doesn't like the argument or shown he is wrong, he just labels it and continues on as before.
    In order to make a good argument, I expect you to abide by logic. I only work with logical arguments. If your argument is void of logic then why should I have to refute it when it is self defeating based on the logic that it uses?

    he has yet to refute my 'changed lives' point which tells me he can't. itis publically recorded and seen throughout history across international boundaries. ifthe Bible were as the critics say then such things would not take place.
    Bullshit. You must of missed the point where I refuted it saying that it is similar to a placebo effect. By saying that a religious person is happier then a non-religious person, then that is the same as saying a drunk man is happier then a sober one. Your argument is worthless on the basis that changed lives mean nothing. Correlation does not equate to causation - Logical Fallacy. You are suggesting that the bible is the cause of their lives being changed. This does not mean it is true that being religious actually makes you a better person.

    p.s.--you cannot make a sientific argument for or against the Bible simokly because scienceis too limited and the Bible is a supernatural book far above the reach 7 scrutiy of science.
    AKA your book is God's word and God is infallible thus the bible is infallible? Circular reasoning - Logical Fallacy
    I think this thead shows the dangers of eleiving in some pompouos hig brow nonsense over common sense.

    Clearly this shows there is a major problem with this 'logical fallacies' crap.
    Something to be aware of because blindly followng that garbage over common sense could wind you up in a whole lot of serious trouble.

    It's basically a daaangerous mindless dogma.
    Logical Fallacies ARE common sense.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    If I believed there was a dragon there, because say I could "feel" the heat of its breath I would demand evidence of you.
    While it could have very well been a vent in the first place and now you are arguing that a Dragon was standing behind me. Without first thinking of the plausible, you immediately go into the implausible.
    The thing is verzen, you keep saying there is no proof of Gods existance and this is a point which can never be settled. An atheist see's the universe and see's a random occurrance, a religious person see's a creation. It's two ways of looking at the same thing.
    Wrong. Nothing in the universe is random. Everything abides by laws. An Atheist simply does not believe in God. There is no scientific justification that is preset for an Atheist to not believe in God. Many have separate reasons to believe, but by saying that they abide by a certain code of belief. By using false claims in your argument, you are coinciding with a logical fallacy.
    Until you can categorically say that the way a religious person looks at things is wrong, your opinion that there is no proof of God can't be used as an undisputable weapon against a persons belief in God.
    That type of logic is what holds us back in thinking scientifically. The reason the scientific method was thought up was to combat people with this mind set.
    First point - ure jumping to conclusions. Who's to say I didn't think of a draft or the like?

    Second point - I did not say that anything in the universe was random, I was meaning the Universe as a whole appeared from random. (as far as we know that is)

    Third point - with this mindset? To point out that there are things which science cannot comment on? That is not detrimental to science at all.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    First point - ure jumping to conclusions. Who's to say I didn't think of a draft or the like?
    You never mentioned a draft in the first place.
    The first thing you said was Dragon.
    "Democracy is a problem because it treats everyone as equals." - Betty Fischer

    "back in the 50's or 60's Nicky Criuz was a gang leader who met David Wilkerson in New York City. After much discussion over months or years, i forget how long, Wilkerson's wife became pregnant. one day Cruz decides to test God, he basically prayed--God if you are real let the baby be born a boy-- it was a boy. "
    - Logic of a creationist

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur
    ""What can be asserted without reason, can be dismissed without reason. ""
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by archaeologist
    verzen basically has sethimself up as the king maker which is why i am not going toparticipate. he dismisses anything thathedoes not like and refuses to refute them. which tells me he can't.

    his rules are tooloose and general which gives him way too much latitude in his subjective judgement of arguments. inother words, if he doesn't like the argument or shown he is wrong, he just labels it and continues on as before.

    he has yet to refute my 'changed lives' point which tells me he can't. itis publically recorded and seen throughout history across international boundaries. ifthe Bible were as the critics say then such things would not take place.

    p.s.--you cannot make a sientific argument for or against the Bible simokly because scienceis too limited and the Bible is a supernatural book far above the reach 7 scrutiy of science.

    anyone demanding 'scientific' evidence or a 'science stamp of approval' is just fooling themselves and ensuring thatthey donothave to change their lifestyle as they have set up a false authority.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Bad Wolf
    All of his post summed up in one sentence as logical proof of theism verzen:

    The combination of that which barks and that which a sheep bellows...
    golly

    how unlike an atheist to resort to a tentative argument

    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Where punarmusiko's quoted post (I assume) fails as an argument is where the assumption that "God" makes a difference in knowing.
    I'm not sure I understand

    are you saying the difference in that god is knowing (ie conscious)

    or that knowing god makes a difference to the seer (ie the person who knows god)

    Also the assumption that "God" and "I" are not the same.
    on the contrary, if one attempts to suggest that they are god, they would have a hard time explaining why they have to see a dentist

    The price for truth is uncertainty, something some theists can't deal with. Which is why they make up concepts to fill the void of the unknowing, just to ease the pain of uncertainty.
    not sure how that helps your case

    If you are certain that one must rely on empirical methods to determine the nature of god its kind of like being certain that one can measure distance with a thermometer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57 Re: The Theist Challange 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by verzen
    Puna - Unfortunately, that is not a valid argument for a supreme being. It is you talking about some things you don't understand and labeling that God is the one that can understand of what you can't understand.
    maybe you could quote the passages I gave that assert this ...

    It is an argument for ignorance in saying that since there are things that you can't understand, then the only thing that you can think of is God that could understand what you can't understand. Make sense?
    Argument for ignorance is a logical falacy.
    If you read the post you can see that I don't say that.

    What I do say is that if one wants to know something, one has have to apply the correct methodology.

    (alternatively, if one wants to insist on using a thermometer to measure distance, all arguments of distance will appear like an argument for ignorance)

    If you disagree, now would perhaps be a good time for you to assert how the empirical method extends itself to issues that preempt our being (in which one could place god, as well as the origin of the universe and other things famous for attracting an empirical consensus )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,415
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I'm not sure I understand

    are you saying the difference in that god is knowing (ie conscious)

    or that knowing god makes a difference to the seer (ie the person who knows god)
    Whatever you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    on the contrary, if one attempts to suggest that they are god, they would have a hard time explaining why they have to see a dentist
    I guess looking at it from a the position of it being a psychological phenomenon is too much to ask?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    not sure how that helps your case

    If you are certain that one must rely on empirical methods to determine the nature of god its kind of like being certain that one can measure distance with a thermometer.
    You can't be quite the empiricist if you think you can measure distance with a thermometer. I haven't claimed certainty on anything. Who knows, perhaps one can measure distance with a thermometer. It's certainly not unthinkable, but practical or accurate.... I would think not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    With archaeologist help I think I have just figured out how to beat the Turing test! Just program your AI as a fundamentalist!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    With archaeologist help I think I have just figured out how to beat the Turing test! Just program your AI as a fundamentalist!
    Ooooohhh! Now that was funny! In a really cool above-certain-people's head sort of way.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    I'm not sure I understand

    are you saying the difference in that god is knowing (ie conscious)

    or that knowing god makes a difference to the seer (ie the person who knows god)
    Whatever you're saying.
    er .....which is exactly what according to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    on the contrary, if one attempts to suggest that they are god, they would have a hard time explaining why they have to see a dentist
    I guess looking at it from a the position of it being a psychological phenomenon is too much to ask?
    if you need extra special material to make your assumptions even approach he tentative, you should state it at the onset.

    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    not sure how that helps your case

    If you are certain that one must rely on empirical methods to determine the nature of god its kind of like being certain that one can measure distance with a thermometer.
    You can't be quite the empiricist if you think you can measure distance with a thermometer. I haven't claimed certainty on anything. Who knows, perhaps one can measure distance with a thermometer. It's certainly not unthinkable, but practical or accurate.... I would think not.
    kind of amazing how a little bit of attentiveness at the stage of "methodology" can save you a hell of a lot of time down the track, eh?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •