When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.
However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.
The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.
In my T-Rex example we have robust evidence that there are no living t-Rex on the face of this planet.
Perhaps. People had 'robust evidence' that the Ceolacanth had been extinct for 60 million years as well. But your claim was not of 'robust evidence' but of proof in the same (logical) sense that it can be proven there are are no married bachelors. I'm still waiting.
Incidently, I would suggest that the atheist can easily claim that there is, in fact, rather more empirical evidence for living T-Rexs than there is for God in that, at least, we have concrete physical evidence that at one time at least they did exist in our universe, and hence that they can. The same cannot be said for God where that 'Good case' is no more than circumstantial at best!
Do you follow how this works?
In exactly the same way that "so the arguments for God’s non-existence could all fail and it would not follow that God does exist"! I agree, but where does that get us? Your claim was not that, but that
Its very easy to prove something does not exist
.. something that, with the exception of what amounts to a trivial special case of absolutely no relevance to the subject at issue (i.e. God), you seem totally unable to substantiate.
Sorry but this does not fit the definition of atheism,
The statement by Pygo fits the definition of atheism that you yourself have given perfectly. What is the problem?
if you simply lacked a belief in somehting it would no be atheism it would be something else, for example a young baby that has never heard about God fits this definition,
Correct!
And I also fit this definition If I have never heard of a distant and obscure Diety, then I can affirm to lack belief.
I think it would be up to you if you wanted to describe yourself as an atheist with respect to that particular deity. Clearly you're not an atheist in the general sense.
I will now add a ''cool'' spin to my thread with this argument.
You've just discovered the ontological argument. Now that is cool, I have to admit.
You've just discovered the ontological argument. Now that is cool, I have to admit.
cool!
now go ahead and refute this particular ontological argument, That could be cool also!
I don't think anyone here who has not made up their mind alredy will find it convincing proof of God I do believe however that it establishes, not the truth of theism, but its rational acceptability.
now go ahead and refute this particular ontological argument, That could be cool also!
Well, maybe, but it's been done so many times before I'm not sure there's much point. That doesn't detract from the argument itself - it's undoubtedly very clever and persistent. I think Kant had the measure of it in his Critique of Pure Reason, but, really, it's up to you to decide whether you want to believe it or not.
You imply that I have a choice in the matter. This is another reason why people use the comparisons to outlandish things like invisible unicorns. To illustrate to you that there is no such choice. I could no more choose to believe in your god than you could choose to believe in invisible unicorns.
You have no choice in the matter?
You are either talking nonsense or you are lying.
But let's humor you and you truly have no choice, so who forces you to have your belief? Which country do you live in?
I choose not to believe in invisible unicorns, and you choose not to believe in god.
If you in all seriousness have the power to make yourself believe in invisible unicorns then you have an ability I lack.
Again, you are back to comparing god with invisible unicorn.
This shows you lack seriousness.
And it is obvious that for you whether God exists or not is no big deal, otherwise you would never have brought in invisible unicorns into such discussions.
Again, you are back to comparing god with invisible unicorn.
This shows you lack seriousness.
And it is obvious that for you whether God exists or not is no big deal, otherwise you would never have brought in invisible unicorns into such discussions.
I'm afraid in some circumstances that comparison is quite legitimate when offered in argument by an atheist, something some people need to 'get over' rather than taking umbrage on each occasion.
This is one of them. You cannot choose what you believe. All you can do is choose, compare, and weigh up the evidence you use to formulate beliefs. That is what atheists do, before concluding and hence believing that God is no more real than that invisible unicorn. They do not choose not to believe any more than theists choose to believe.
I'm afraid in some circumstances that comparison is quite legitimate when offered in argument by an atheist, something some people need to 'get over' rather than taking umbrage on each occasion.
I disagree.
The comparison is never legitimate in all circumstances because the implications of finding truth or proof whether God exists are fundamentals and cannot be exaggerated, while the implications whether invisible unicorns exist is no more earth shattering than finding that Kim Jong Il is indeed an alien.
The truth or falsity of a proposition is not dependent on the implications of whether it is true or false. I wouldn't deny that issues of God are far more important than those of invisible unicorns. However that has no universal relevance to arguments presented with regard to the existence or non-existence of either beyond, perhaps, how much effort it is worth putting into them.
Captain Obvious to the rescue: regardless of anything else about the situation, comparing God to invisible unicorns is still inevitably going to come across to the theist, rightly or not, as you not taking them and/or the matter seriously, and as insult or mockery, and therefore will either (1) derail the conversation, as has happened here, (2) inspire them not to want to take you seriously, or (3) at the very, very least distract from your point and likely make them dislike you needlessly. Rather likely all three. Therefore don't do it.
Peace be to any prophets I may have mentioned above. Praised and exalted be my Maker, if I have mentioned Him. (Come to think of it praise Him anyway.)
And yet you provide no alternate means for making the point. I have to question if you understand it or if you are too blinded by being offended by the examples used to see it. If you can make it in some other way, as I said before, that'd be great. We can then show people the point and not offend them. Otherwise, theists will just have to grow a thicker skin.
Atheists have been told by theists for centuries now that they deserve eternal torture (hell) for not believing in these gods, something the theists clearly endorse (they say their God demands this and they stand by their God as just and good). Now theists can't handle having their gods compared to unicorns in order to make a point, a point which I'm not aware of another way to make?
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 12-11-2009 at 12:21 AM.
And yet you provide no alternate means for making the point. I have to question if you understand it or if you are too blinded by being offended by the examples used to see it. If you can make it in some other way, as I said before, that'd be great. We can then show people the point and not offend them. Otherwise, theists will just have to grow a thicker skin.
Atheists have been told by theists for centuries now that they deserve eternal torture (hell) for not believing in these gods, something the theists clearly endorse (they say their God demands this and they stand by their God as just and good). Now theists can't handle having their gods compared to unicorns in order to make a point, a point which I'm not aware of another way to make?
Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.
To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims
I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).
Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).
I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?
Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.
To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims
I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).
Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).
I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?
All the best,
Faysal
Give us the holy books of said gods and the & lives & works of their messengers and then we'll take it from there!
all the best!
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Well you can, it just requires a detour. It's time for a role reversal. Muslims engaged in this thread can remain Muslims. I will play the role of a believer.
To Yahya Sulaiman, naidamar, justify, and other Muslims
I propose to you, that the god Chaos, creator of the universe, exists. She gave birth to Gaia, Eros, and Nyx. Gaia later gave birth to Uranus, who she eventually married, and through Tethys then Clymene we come to brothers Epimetheus and Prometheus who created the creatures of the earth. Prometheus being jealous and clever stole fire from Zeus to give it to his favorite creation (Man). We celebrate that act to this day by symbolizing that journey at the start of every Olympic game (summer and winter).
Saturn, the roman counterpart to Cronus (Greek), was the god of agriculture and harvest. Upon the instructions of his mother (Terra/Gaea), he castrated his father and became the ruler of the universe, eventually bringing the golden age to Rome. We celebrate his rule each year with the Feast of Saturnalia which is held every year at the Winter Solstice. We even honor him each week by naming the seventh day after him (Saturday).
I presume you believe that no god(s) exist(s) other than Allah. Can you provide sufficient evidence to me that these gods do not or did not exist?
All the best,
Faysal
In addition to GS's requirements, I would like:
* An economic system based on the teachings of said deity
* A completelegal system (as above)
* A societal ideal/system (as above)
* List of rituals
* A plausible explanation to why there are many Gods (your example has several siblings) yet I must only obey one
Failure to provide any of those will result in completely zero harm to you, but it does weaken your example somewhat. I like to make an informed decision on the life-long paths I choose so require some information.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
In addition to GS's requirements, I would like:
* An economic system
* A completelegal system
* A societal ideal/system
* List of rituals
Failure to provide any of those will result in completely zero harm to you, but it does weaken your example somewhat. I like to make an informed decision on the life-long paths I choose so require some information.
Not everyone an distinguish Medicine from quackery hence:
really will cure your anxiety over something like an SSRI which is FDA approves because doctors and pharmaceutical companies along with the FDA are evil but 'holistic medicine' is well holistic..
you even have strong endorsement from PhD's on the site
boasting the wonderful ''all natural ingredient' of Argentum nitricum!.. in other words Silver nitrate what they put in new borns eyes to ward of chlamydial infections.. not recommended for ingestion, least of which on daily basis let alone to treat anxiety !..
remember this guy
yup that is argyria (caused by silver ingestion) .. can your average sap put two and two together?
no, all they know is that it works.. no research goes into the matter...
so how can you expect someone to distinguish the difference between religion and myth, science and science fiction if even the term 'Mechanism of action is elusive'
They have beliefs (they might not realize it but they do) and no being an atheist isn't the default state (Quality research has shown otherwise)
They ask for evidence but fail to provide evidence for the reverse..
what do we call that?
I call it a ridiculous waste of my time..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Flew has subsequently changed his position given in the Habermas interview as justification for his endorsing of deism. In October 2004 (before the December publication of the Flew-Habermas interview), a letter written to Richard Carrier of the Secular Web, stated that he was a deist and also said that "I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations."[13] Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."[13]
In another letter to Carrier of 29 December 2004 Flew went on to retract his statement, writing "a deity or a 'super-intelligence' [is] the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature", and "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction". He blames his error on being "misled" by Richard Dawkins, claiming Dawkins "has never been reported as referring to any promising work on the production of a theory of the development of living matter".[13]
The work of physicist Gerald Schroeder had been influential in Flew's new belief, but Flew told Carrier that he had not read any of the critiques of Schroeder that Carrier referred him to.
In addition to GS's requirements, I would like:
* An economic system based on the teachings of said deity
* A completelegal system (as above)
* A societal ideal/system (as above)
* List of rituals
* A plausible explanation to why there are many Gods (your example has several siblings) yet I must only obey one
Failure to provide any of those will result in completely zero harm to you, but it does weaken your example somewhat. I like to make an informed decision on the life-long paths I choose so require some information.
Okay, presuming I cannot provide a legal or economic or social system based on their teachings, how does that weaken my argument?
Also for the sake of argument, let’s assume my gods demand everything contradictory to whatever you currently choose to believe. I’ll give you free reign of this. How does that weaken my argument?
Lets be honest, I haven’t actually made an argument yet, I’ve only proposed these gods exist. I’m also not interested in defining a new religion. I’ve only proposed the existence of these gods.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks