My driving point here is that the argument is for God being above normal existence, thus supernatural. And you can't argue supernatural. Thus, your "side" (as I presume it is) lacks any definite support. In debate, everything is about support. I'm just trying to point out that there is none so there's only one way a formulaic debate can go after that.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the nature of this conversation that don't need to be made.
Why not?My driving point here is that the argument is for God being above normal existence, thus supernatural. And you can't argue supernatural.
Arguing is a similar mode to explaining. You can't explain supernatural things by definition. And if you can't explain it, you can't argue it. It is self-defined as being beyond something we can conceive, and thus, anything we could argue.
Didn't we just talk about this?Originally Posted by Humor's Hand
It isn't an argument from ignorance as I have cited lots of logic that goes against him (emphasis on the lower case aitch). It would only be an argument from ignorance if I were saying that we have no proof he exists, therefore he doesn't exist. Though, that is a fairly good argument. It would be hypocritical though. You see, I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
You said I am assuming a bit too much about the conversation, so I'm going to help define the nature. Why should we believe in God? I think that's a fairly satisfactory way of putting it and it'll certainly prevent all this ambiguous if's and but's and maybe's.
You are assuming that God does not exist because we have no proof that God does exist, right? And because there are reasons to believe He doesn't, we should not, right?
When you cannot support or discredit an argument from either side beyond a doubt without logical fallacy, there's no way to proceed forward.
I'm not assuming anything. You keep returning the ball to me on the same issue. We cannot say absolutely one way or the other. The objective is to find out which is the more logical and timely answer. I have given plenty of answers and thoughts as to why he can't. You have given only that we have no way of knowing (which tells me you're using the argument from ignorance yourself). You're blatantly adopting that your side is the one that is assumed and I have the burden of proof.
So no, and no. I have provided answers and arguments and you only continue to present questions that ignore anything I have said. I have unending resources that say it is more likely than not that he doesn't exist. You have the assumption that he does and that I cannot disprove you. No, I cannot know for sure, but neither can you, and my side has facts and ideas and you have only faith. Last time I checked, faith wasn't grounds for proof.
Please, I dare you to directly answer any of my statements in a way that provides insight to the argument. It'd be a nice change of pace.
Well, I'm certainly not answering anyone else's. There is a difference between insight and what you are wanting to read.Please, I dare you to directly answer any of my statements in a way that provides insight to the argument. It'd be a nice change of pace.
Why is there an "objective" to this discussion? Who came up with this objective and why? Why is this a "which" question? What do you mean by timely answer?I'm not assuming anything. You keep returning the ball to me on the same issue. We cannot say absolutely one way or the other. The objective is to find out which is the more logical and timely answer.
Okay. Good.I have given plenty of answers and thoughts as to why he can't.You're the only one approaching this discussion in terms of two different sides. The only "sides" I've been involved in are your statements and replying to them.You have given only that we have no way of knowing (which tells me you're using the argument from ignorance yourself). You're blatantly adopting that your side is the one that is assumed and I have the burden of proof.Those questions are the answer to what you have said.So no, and no. I have provided answers and arguments and you only continue to present questions that ignore anything I have said.Well, that's interesting, because that seems to imply that your sources have an idea of exactly what constitutes "God" so that it could offer evidence of that idea.I have unending resources that say it is more likely than not that he doesn't exist.Just to clarify, nothing I'm presenting is really representative of my own views, I've just been trying to guide this conversation.You have the assumption that he does and that I cannot disprove you. No, I cannot know for sure, but neither can you...There are plenty of phenomena that seem to contradict our current understanding of how things work. But you would still need to define a concept of what God constitutes in order to "make arguments" for your "side" or whatever you want to call it....and my side has facts and ideas and you have only faith.
Okay. Well I'll concede to the fact that i won't get a straight debate out of this. I commend you on that. I'm still rather confused about where you stand on all of this because of your ambiguous nature though.
I think that in general, when we refer to God, we aren't thinking strictly of the Christian God, because I think really the image would be impossible to define in any words. And as people have tried to define it in words, any existing definition we have is insufficient. I think one thing we can all agree on though, is that any God has to be supernatural to be considered a god. But to be clear, that's all I mean. It could be any of the hundreds of thousands of perfectly equally valid Gods that have been dreamed up.
So this next question is more philosophical, and I'd like to see how you answer it. Assuming God's word is good (we wouldn't base a culture's morality on it if we didn't believe so), is what God says good because it is good, or because God says it is good?
Well. No matter what we say on this forum, it is not going to prove that one or the other is true. BUT debating this kind of thing is very veryy important of course.
So:
ME: God, could you prove you exist? If you are God, prove that you exist.
GOD: No. I am God, and I exist only in faith. You must have faith in me, and then you will know that I exist. Proving that I exist is against the Nature of God.
ME: Well, empty space doesn't talk or think.
GOD: Well, that proves I'm God.
ME: God is always right. You contradicted yourself, and therefore you have gone against the nature of God twice. Not something an omnipresent perfect divinity would do, is it?
GOD: (resigns.)
Also, evolution can be observed in an afternoon. Put a treat high up, and the bigger ones get it or the little ones do something (stand on a chair) to get it. So the big ones are happier, and healthier in the long run. Which makes them more likely to breed. And over time, this would lead to bigger dogs. THIS IS EVOLUTION.
Show me an example of intelligent design in an afternoon. (Please do, I mean it!)
My ambition is to get a tatoo that says "Have they posted yet?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks