Total posts: 1,014
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You haven't even tried to address your fallacies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Prefix "-A" has three meanings, but the one that is relevant to atheism is the meaning "not/without"
Can you demonstrate that the "ultimate reality" even exists? Because you're talking about causes of the big bang, but time words like "before" have no meaning when t=0 (the point at which spacetime are converged into a point with infinite curvature.)
Also, even if you could empirically prove there was a cause, that doesn't indicate that the cause is a god.
Your argument relies on redefining words to construct a straw man "atheism." Then you posit that strawman against your personal belief that a god exists, and project your own religious faith onto that straw man. Your whole argument is a fallacy on top of a fallacy. Straw man on top of false equivalence on top of projection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
"-a" means not/without. if one is without theism, they are an atheist. You are an atheist to thousands of gods. We just believe in one less god than you.
Created:
-->
@Intellect
But all of those things could be accomplished if God didn't exist. So how are those arguments that he does?
Created:
-->
@ebuc
Why call the universe god?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
You reason from a set of statements. It's deductive. It doesn't require empirical input to reason from a set of statements.
I'm not going to respond If you continue to ignore my question while I answer yours.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I did answer your question. A priori means without empirical input. It's reason using theoretical deduction without empirical input. Pure reason is reason A Priori. Pure inquiry is inquiry into A Priori knowledge, which is the realm of moral inquiry. So now answer my question, how do you prove god's existence?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Reason without empricial input.
You're not answering my question.
You're not answering my question.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
A priori reason.
How do you prove god's existence?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Reason is embedded In our language, so the use of reason necessitates a language base. "It is the reason that drives actions without any sense dependent incentives." So I argue that pure reason, without a Posteriori input is the foundation of moral principle. So how do you prove god's existence?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well how do you prove god's existence. I argue that morals can only come from pure practical reason. And any divinely commanded morals are merely the morals of fallible men, claiming to speak for god
Created:
-->
@Tarik
In what way? And how you derive morality from something prior to establishing it's existence?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Haha thanks. Wish I could remember where I read that for the first time
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well, specify the moral argument, and I'll tell you
Created:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not scrutinizing every single post, just those I feel like. I like to keep my mind open, but not so open that it falls out, so a little scrutiny is necessary.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Because I made the post
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Do you think there is some definition of god that should be exempt from scrutiny? This thread is called "what's your best argument for God's existence." If you post here, expect scrutiny.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
The definition you provided of organized requires orderliness. But the problem is just transferred because fundamentally, order vs disorder faces the exact same problem of being arbitrary to what the individual considers orderly or disorderly.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
The definitions of god are as numerous as there are believers in god. The definitions are for the faithful to provide, and then to be scrutinized.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
That's essentially what I was asking
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It reads like you believe in the existence of truth, but just call it god. But how is truth "god"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
It would be handy if there was a little green "w" or a little red "L" under the finished marker on people's debate's pages.
Created:
Posted in:
One of the best things about this site is that if you have a debate idea, it probably hasn't been done yet. So almost every fresh topic feels like a pioneering step forward.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
you weren't referring to the Jesus story when you said " The World, unable to bear The Incarnate Truth, killed it. But as The Truth cannot be overcome by falsehood, as darkness cannot overcome light, The Truth rose again. In becoming death, and rising again, death itself was conquered..."? Because that sounds like the Jesus story to me, coupled with you saying you are an orthodox christian.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
See? You're just using the word truth and god interchangeably without justifying why god is true. Your attempt at justification is just the bible.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
But what exactly do you mean by "ultimate reality?" You're defining it very vaugley. If reality is real, then reality is the ultimate reality. That doesn't require a god to be invoked at any point. Are you a pantheist?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Substantiate this specific claim :
The Ultimate Reality is what gives existence to all things
Created:
-->
@Mopac
See, you're just assuming this thing you call "the ultimate reality" exists, without justification, and you call it god.
It really looks like you're reasoning : god is the ultimate reality because the ultimate reality is god.
It really looks like you're reasoning : god is the ultimate reality because the ultimate reality is god.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What exactly constitutes the "ultimate reality," and why call it god, whatever "it" is?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Because all you said to justify it was "Since the very start, we have believed and taught that The Truth is God." But this isn't supported by anything you just seem to assert it and go from there
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
It's my favorite game. I'm Sum1hugme at chess.com. I'm worse on a screen though bc my attention span is shorter than if i have a board in front of me. I competed in my first tournament at the end of last year b4 the Covid and Im a certified US Chess Federation member (gotta b for the tourneys)
Created:
-->
@Mopac
You're definitely presupposing that the truth is god, with no real justification
Created:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I've met Kent Hovind. He genuinely thinks that evolution is a religion
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Yeah exactly, so it's weird to invoke him as an authority on the universe since he's a historian not an astrophysicist or cosmologist
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That's a strange topic to invoke richard carrier on. I'm assuming you mean Dr. Richard Carrier, the ancient historian who does a lot of talks about the historicity of jesus?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing, and then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too. I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."
I think this is what he was talking about
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
.However, there needs to be thought and intelligence to carry out a given process through the understanding of what needs to be done to achieve a particular desired outcome.
If there is an end goal then the existence of that end necessitates an end-setter. But natural processes don't operate with a goal in mind, and intelligence isn't necessary for natural processes to occur, this is a faulty premise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ayyantu logged in recently, have y'all made any progress?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
There are two motives of moral action : duty and inclination. Inclinations are always geared towards the satisfaction of some preference. For example, if there was a shopkeeper who had the opportunity to shortchange his customers but he decides not to because he'll lose business, then he is operating with the motive to satisfy the preference that his business succeed. This is a fundamentally selfish motive, and therefore, devoid of moral value. Whereas if he was to do the right thing for the sake of it being the right thing to do, in other words, doing the right thing for the right reasons, he would be acting out of a duty to the moral law. So, when he is acting from a hypothetical imperative (or a hypothetical ought), he may do the right thing, but it's for the wrong reasons. Does that help?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Or you could just speak clearly, exactly what you mean. I'm saying your original statement is a false analogy fallacy, which you don't seem to contest.
Created: