Well that is a contradiction because you said you were directly continuing a line of thought he didn't follow. Meaning a piece of the argument that was possible. And one that was covered. If you're trying to make any point at all, context might help. If you're not trying to make a point or say anything related to what I was talking about, it'd be best to stop referring to my posts as if they were related.
Okay.
1. Forget anything your friend said.
2. Consider all of this as if it were something you and I said.
Originally Posted by Humor's Hand
I was referring to your question (or whoever's, it doesn't matter) of "If he doesn't exist, where is the argument?", where "the argument" would refer to how God exists.
Okay. I guess to carry this out, I'll have to do as you are doing. So simple question.
Are you trying to prove their is a way (the one you outlined way) for God to exist?
It'd be kind of tough to prove God exists. You'd have to define God and prove and then go about doing it.
So yes or no. Whatever you want.
Okay, basically are we arguing anything at all? I understand the whole "he exists beyond all understanding" thing. I got it. The only thing I have to say is that it is pointless in an argument because the point of a debate is provide evidence that suggests something. SO we don't get a yes or no form that. Just a "he could make up some crazy way to defy any evidence we have".
Don't get me wrong. We are not in any position to know whether or not God exists. Ever. I don't even want to speculate on whether we're better off with or without him. I just want to ask if it is logical to believe in God. Logic, being the primary mode of thinking that provides me with all the concrete answers (does gravity exist?) is the most important to me in this discussion. If logic has gotten me everything else, it's logical to think it'll continue to be that way. It all comes back to dogma.
I don't think evidence is the only tool that can be used in a debate, especially if the argument is that the evidence is inherently impossible to obtain.
This is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Pasted from that article:
* "The solar system must be younger than a million years because even if the sun were made of solid coal and oxygen it would have burned up within that time at the rate it generates heat." (An argument from ignorance, from 19th Century encyclopedias[citation needed], based on the assumption that because there was no means known at that time of producing heat more efficient than coal, this logically put a limit on the Sun's possible age. In fact in the 20th Century with the discovery of radioactivity and nuclear fusion, the sun's age was more correctly dated at many billions of years old instead. The 'ignorance' in this case was assuming that no fuel source could be more efficient than coal and oxygen.)
* "If polar bears are (the) dominant (predator) in the Arctic, then there would seem to have been no need for them to evolve a white-coloured form of camouflage." In his book Probability of God, Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore casts doubt on neo-Darwinian evolution with that statement. This argument was addressed by the evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker, who wrote that if the writer had thought to imagine a black polar bear trying to sneak up on a seal in the Arctic, he would see the evolutionary value of such fur. The ignorance in this case was assuming that no other purpose could be served.
Who says we're arguing?
We're not arguing. We're calmly debating. But you still have "arguments as a method by which you debate something. What else besides logic and evidence could be used in a debate? All I'm getting is that there is a form of existence which goes beyond our logic and thus it is possible for him to exist. But to give value and substance to an argument, it must use logic (but apparently not evidence, somehow) to validate such a possibility. If anything, this mode of existence argument only stands to show that there is either:
a) No grounds for viable defense
b) the subject cannot be debated at all because the pro's argument cannot be proved or played out logically in any form
Personally, I equate the whole higher mode of existence thing to real world issues. Iran has nukes. We just have no physically possible way of knowing or proving so. Oh, and New Zealand. new Zealand is REALLY packing on the nukes too. But they're special unprovable, undetectable, inconceivable nukes. If you don't buy that, then I'm sure it's just that they have some mode of hiding normal nukes. But they could totally absolutely maybe be there. Thus, the US is justified in taking military action against New Zealand.
In other words, if I don't think a similarly formed argument could stand up in a different debate, we can equate its arguing power.
I'm not sure many people equate God as a "real world" entity. And the situation I'm presenting certainly doesn't. You seem to be treating the concept of God like He is a person.
Christian doctrine would say that God is a person. John 1:1 says that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God, and the Word became flesh". For the most part, Christians believe that Christ was, essentially, God with skin on. He came to Earth as a person to show his love by dying a death that would be a payment for all others' sins.I'm not sure many people equate God as a "real world" entity. And the situation I'm presenting certainly doesn't. You seem to be treating the concept of God like He is a person.
Again, I'm not saying that's what anyone should believe. Yes, I would like you to, but I'm not going to force it. I just saw the comment about God as a person and decided to respond.
I've heard the lights and seen the sounds.
Yeah, it's impossible to have these discussions anyway, much less with more than 1 person at a time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks