Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not only have you not demonstrated that your god even is that ultimate reality (which isn't even the same as supreme being), but now your saying that the ultimate reality preceded the universe? I mean if its just reality to its extreme then it's always existed, sure it preceded the universe, but in that case then you really couldn't apply it to a god, because the definition would be applying to concepts and not beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So to clarify, the Christian god is not defined the same as the pantheist god? As in, it is not the supreme or ultimate reality? Because if I interpret the definition of how you would like me too, that means either that just isn't something that exists definitionally or it just the observable universe.
*Also I'd just like to note, I got a medal because of how much I've posted here, which is ironic*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you are claiming that the Christian god fits that definition then you are even more wrong. Because that god does not fit the definition of the observable universe
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Whenever you cherry-pick the definitions, yes, what I'm saying is that definitionally: Oxford has more authority than Merriam Webster. Also, no, whenever you actually interpret the definition in a way that isn't assuming your conclusion and actually find the best fitting definition of each word, you are incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No I do not accept Merriam Webster's definition whenever Oxford provides a contradicting one. You seem to be a preacher, not actually validly addressing my points and talking past me.
I have specifically given you reasoning why every one of your arguments are invalid, and you have not properly responded. Do that and maybe you'll have something to talk about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have already explained to you, why that definition does not work. That is Merriam webster's definition, we both agreed that Oxford's was preferred. And the only interpretation that supported your claim was fallacious and I explained why it was. You are trying to convince me here, and you have no fulfilled your BoP. As i have already explained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
- You have not demonstrated the word god to be the equivalent of truth
- You are committing a begging the question fallacy by presuming your conclusion in your premise
- You have presented no valid evidence of why the atheist's position is incorrect
You are either a troll, extremely stubborn, or simply uneducated with regards to how logic works
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Except, no, before you can say that is what you mean, you actually have to demonstrate that a god is truth, asserting that is simply that, an assertion!
Not to mention I actually out dictionary-ied, by debunking your positions on topicality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Except I'm not. At least, you haven't demonstrated why in a valid manner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Umm... you have no valid evidence to support that claim. You are being pretty closed-minded. You have made a claim and therefore have necessarily adopted the BoP
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Wrong once more, prove that I should use the word god (which is semantic at this point, because if a pantheistic god is just the observable universe, then that god DOES NOT EXIST, there is no reason why we should consider this a definition of god, it is simply the observable universe), as the ultimate reality. You have no demonstrated why this is true. All of your defintional arguments were flawed and/or fallacious
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is factually and philosophically untrue, you could present your syllogism as such:
P1: God is the supreme being
P2: A supreme being is synonymous with truth
Con: Therefore, God is truth
Except P2: Is not sound, it is not true, as you have to cherry pick untopical definitions to support that claim, not to mention, even the first premise isn't true when using the best sources.
Unless the god you believe in is literally just the observable universe (which has a better definition: the observable universe), it does not even fit your definition in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, you would have to demonstrate that:
Truth = God
Before anything, claiming that god is the truth, is a claim itself. No definitions have supported that interpretation. You are begging the question, and presuming your conclusion in your premises. This is fallacious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
First of all - see post 12
And then I would argue that - that definition is not topical to what is philosophically and most examplularly the definition of god, therefore we should use this definition of being instead:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Even if this was the definition of god, I could very easily argue that this was simply a semantic point and that any god you believed in did not fit the definition. Therefore no gods would still be my position, and you would have to demonstrate that the god you were speaking of, fit that definition, which would still require evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The supreme being, not the supreme reality, meaning this definition is just: A being of the highest authority, therefore the definition is not saying that god is a-causal or existent by definition.
In other words, the preferred definition does not note god as inherently existent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Ah, my bad, however: if taken as the adjective should be, to modify the noun, in this case, an agent or person, we can see that the dictionary is most likely referencing this definition of Surpeme:
"highest in rank or authority"
and for Ultimate Reality:
ultimate: "the best or most extreme of its kind"
reality: "something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"
Therefore an agent that is of ultimate reality is simply: "something that is was not created that is the best example of such." Not necessarily something that is real definitionally. Even if this was the case, the definition would then simply be a syllogism, which one could introduce critques of and investigate the claims of.
Regardless, there are sources with more credibility than Merriam Webster that disagree, for example, a better definition of god might be:
"God-
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
3. An image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god."
Note: These definitions were taken from Lexico.com - an oxford english and Spanish dictionary
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Um, no, a being is not the same thing ontologically as existence. At least not how you are using the word existence. Being refers to an agent, something or someone who is capable of conscious action, whereas Merriam webster defines existence (under the most topical definition) as: "the totality of existent things"
Not to mention that is not any of the definitions Merriam webster uses:
"1: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe
2: a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler"
"… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.— Sunita Pant Bansal"
This is a quote, not the definition provided by Merriam Webster, I don't know if this was an honest mistake, but reappropriating quotes as definitions is a no go
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And do you have evidence to support that claim? Why should I apply that definition to god at all? Not to mention you haven't at all demonstrated that a universe wouldn't work without a god. Give me a valid reason to conclude that that is the actual definition of god, before anything else.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.
Um.... as Stephen (though I do not agree with them on most things, these specific things is true) pointed out, there are multiple verses in the bible that demonstrate, yes, the bible is a specific cause of homophobia. What matters is that the bible spreads homophobia, by calling it a sin. It is homophobic to consider someone's sexuality evil. Does that necessarily make the person homophobic? No. It means they are doing something homophobic, and that they should stop that, before they actually buy further in and become fully homophobic.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.
My point was that someone does not choose their sexuality any more than they choose their ethnicity. My points previously are that churches who accept gay people are cherry-picking verses, and while I love the fact that they are being less homophobic, it is factually correct that they are not interpreting gods will correctly.
My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.
When I said my morality, I meant the moral philosophy that I applied to, while it is subjective - so it all morality - and that what I meant wasn't to claim that god was objectively evil in some kind of tonal difference, but point out that even according to god's own rules, she is immoral.
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.
I thank you for your humbleness, but I must digress:
In some cases no, but this also applies to heterosexual relationships. Is a relationship between two men or two women any less likely to fall apart than one between a man and a woman due to cheating? I do not think so, and since this is a claim that is indicative of a change in status, it should be backed up with evidence.
To your second claim, how is someone doing (what you assert as necessary) a necessary function a lifestyle? That's like saying someone who needs to eat and therefore is an eater by lifestyle. I suppose you could semantically argue the point, but it wouldn't be true.
This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?
Perhaps it was a misinterpretation from me, but the point is, using marriage in your premises would imply that your points and impacts are based on the relationship model of marriage, I was simply pointing out that Marriage is not at all ideal, and therefore not a good piece of information to have in one premise.
I am curious, why is a platonic the most ideal relationship platonic? Not saying I disagree or anything, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. To the last question, I suppose? I thought we were talking about god in general. I just so happened to believe in the one of the bible.
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?
Why isn't it? First of all, if we're talking about the bible, then you should know that in genesis it explicitly favors polygamy, or at least a descendent of adam is not punished for having two wives.
Second of all - as long as it's a healthy relationship between consenting adults, and isn't toxic, it really isn't a bad thing at all, in fact, I would argue that polygamy can be more ideal than monogamy, as each partner is given more love and affection (in a healthy relationship anyway).
Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love,Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research.I'm not trying to give you a lesson on relationships if that's what you think. That should be evident though due to the fact I've been asking you a fair amount of questions. Why do I do that? Basically it's because I don't know.And I'm not one to push people into a conversation. If you you wish to stop, I assure you there's no offense.
When I said the entire thing was nonsense, I was talking about the specific point I was addressing, not the entire conversation. I'd be more than happy to continue it, I was simply pointing out that the question wasn't really a valid one, as it presumes that romantic and sexual love are necessarily intertwined. That's all.
To be clear, I am okay with continuing the conversation as long as you are.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position.What assumption are you talking about?
That life is basically good, yes we all have pain, but just jumping straight to - life is basically good is at best an assumption an at worst a non-sequitur
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It's not just homosexuality that brought on a death penalty. Pretty much most of us here would be potential candidates for harsh punishment. You're not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. The invitation to receive God's grace is as much open to you as anyone else.
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible. My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!
But anyway, I understand the conflict as far as Christianity and homosexuality is concerned. I would say the reason why there are Christian churches, or Christian individualswho identify as being gay is because they know God is love. Some might see it as a struggle. Some may have a difficult time resolving between God's love for them, and God's stance against homosexuality. But it all boils down to it being between us individually, and God. That time will come for all of us.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity.
Homosexuality is not meant to be a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is. What I mean by that is, sex is only a small part of a marriage union. There comes a time when a couple grows old enough to the point they may not have the ability to engage in sexual activity. But the union between the two is to be as strong as it was on the wedding day. That's love. Since same sex marriage is a major issue, would you be willing to spend the rest of your life with one partner of the same sex until the day one of you passes on?
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships. This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course.
Even at a young age, the marriage vow implies that faithfulness is mandatory. If not, it's not love. Or certainly not ultimate love. If a wife or husband has an unfortunate accident or illness that renders them incapable of sexual activity, the marriage vow still suggests sexual faithfulness. Even if the person who is no longer able to perform sexually tells their spouse they understand their physical needs, and it's okay to find a sex partner, the ultimate act of love would still demand complete faithfulness. If you were in a same sex union, would you be able to remain faithful should something unfortunate happen to your partner?
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not. Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love, Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Specifically, it was the internal inconsistencies of the bible, that the tellings of the bible did not match what was objectively true, I also chided under the blatant immorality it was spewing. As a gay teen, I find the verse saying I should be stoned and that I am an abomination, particularly uncompelling. Not to mention the creation story, the flood myth, the tower of babel. So many things were incorrect within the bible that I started to completely reconsider my biases. It was thanks to the bible that I decided to study philosophy and logical thinking and such.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require.
This is assuming that atheists are begging the question, which is false, no the position of an atheist is that no evidence presented thus far (thus far referring to the current state of affairs) has been valid. If one can demonstrate valid proof that god exists, I would change my mind.
Thus far, there has been none I find convincing.
On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists.
Now you are quite literally begging the question, you are presuming your conclusion in your premise. There is a fundamental flaw in the way you see the burden of proof and how evidence should change our mind.
Essentially: I do not discount evidence for god because I am an atheist, I examine each piece of evidence to see if it is valid, sound, logically consistent, etc... That is exactly how theists should look through the evidence for a god, not presume one's existence, but check to see if any evidence established is sound, valid, logically consistent, etc..
As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof.
1, 2, 3, 4, assertions have been made. That means you have necessarily adopted a burden of proof. Please demonstrate how a god exists, how humans are proof of god, how evil is proof of god, and how atheists are proof of god.
For your note: An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. Take that as you will.
Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says.
You, yourself admitted that whenever you looked at the evidence, you were committing a logical fallacy! How then, could one come to the conclusion that your proofs are at all evidential or valid?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
No not really, I look for the most powerful arguments every once in a while, but no new evidence has been found for months, though I do look fairly often. I still have not found valid evidence of god. I suppose yes, any god that did exist would have to be inherently evil to create such an environment, but this doesn't really provide an argument against a god, simply a reason to doubt one cares.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Wrong again. I am open to ANY claim such there is proper and valid evidence that supports that claim. I require evidence to justify ANY god, I simply point out that the god of the bible is a particularly nasty interpretation of god.
Created:
If I were using my own morality to judge that god then yes, that god would be evil. That god supposedly killed millions for nothing more than what he saw as evil action. Even though it would be perfectly within an omnipotent's gods power to simply teach them the right way. You know considering that apparently the apple that was supposed to teach us about good and evil didn't work.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
What? A proposition should not require that, if a proposition is true, one should be able to explain it to another rationally. I have explored the evidence and found it all uncompelling or simply fallacious.
Just so you know, I was a Christian for the first 14 years of my life, it was by trying to get closer with the proposed deity that I became an atheist.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Not if there is no evidence of this "god". Before I would give that proposition any weight, one must demonstrate it. I'm open to any proposition, but you have to demonstrate it first. If you want to convince me that their is a god, I actually have a forum topic for exactly that.
Created:
I suppose there is, but the point isn't what we are paranoid over, it is what the truth is. The fact is, we do not know what caused the big bang, to asert it was god, is a god of the gaps fallacy, an assumption. Until there is valid evidence that a god caused the big bang, that is all it will be.
I suppose there is, but it's not relevant. There is no valid evidence supporting creationism. Whereas literally most of modern biology is based on evolution.
Created:
No, it doesn't, we know the big bang was what caused the universe, we don't know what caused the big bang, that's it.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
My point is, we don't know, and claiming, "Nothing did it" Isn't at all a reasonable position, it's a false dichotomy. And I could care less if you disagree with the gods of the gaps, you just asserted that it was a dumb one, provide your reasoning.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
This is a blatant strawman, and it misrepresents the scientific model of the universe without god supports. We are not sure why the big bang happened, but that does not mean that god did it. Declaring that is a god of the gaps fallacy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Aw, you think little ole' me is developing a quality debate? Consider me flattered. Especially considering your record here, any tips or critiques would be much appreciated!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ah, thanks I guess? I can't tell what their deal is, cognitive dissonance I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
Present your case for any God's existence or lack thereof! Have fun, this is just to talk about the very wide debate going on between the religious and atheist here. There are tons of topics that seem to hit the top of this question, but I decided to cut to the heart of the matter, do(es) god(s) exist?
Created:
Posted in:
*Post - and Rational has blocked me for pointing to logical fallacies*
Make enemies? I point out when people are wrong, I note the particular fallacy. I don't choose to respond to people because of my political views. I don't attempt or even try to make enemies. I suppose people don't like that I consistently require evidence to justify a claim, or get upset whenever people refuse basic human rights to people, or deny decades of science that has been proven over and over again.
"Sulk every single post you make"
I'm legitimately confused what you mean. Do you want me to stop being logically consistent? Or pointing out bad science? At no point have I tried to be enemies with people. Just to reiterate that point. You can reply if you like, all your lack of a response means to me is forfeit. Or, giving up because you don't feel like engaging (obviously people could just be busy, but I mean you are specifically pointing out you won't respond.)
Passive-aggressive? Because I am legitimately confused about why you believe this, and I believe a strong approach may help me understand. And, me, being passive-aggressive? Isn't that the least bit hypocritical coming from you?
How about this, how would you like me to respond? How would you like me to conduct myself in these responses specifically? How would you like me to address arguments and all? Since you are saying I'm passive-aggressive, sulky, and trying to make enemies, I suppose you have a standard that is objective or at least more justified than my own? One that you follow perhaps?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't know about the rest of it, but ignoring the opponent's points is not something a good voter would let you get away with. If I see someone dropped an argument, I give the argument point for that section of the debate to the other person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Except.... they present scientifically verifiable studies, as well as peer-reviewed studies, hundreds of them. There is a reason NASA is a leader in it's field. Not to mention you are completely wrong, there are definitely more than 2 organizations, here are 6.
Here are 30 more
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
I meant more like the topics you choose, Transgender and Systemic Racism so far, I might've seen Orogmagi except one debate on the latter, but their usual debates aren't about stuff like that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
From your positions so far, I'm not sure Oromgai even would debate you. Oromagi is a specialized debater, and is very careful about the debate topics they choose. Not to say they couldn't or are bad at other things, but I'm not sure if your usual style is in their preferred wheelhouse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No the default position is: Nasa may or may not be trustworthy
Therefore concluding that they are not is an assertion and requires evidence to make validly.
Also, Occum's Razor says we should prefer the explanation with the least assumptions.
Here you are assuming that the thousands of hours of video is faked instead, what it appears to be, real. Therefore you must also demonstrate that position. And I wanted evidence that they needed permission to release the video not to go to space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It.... literally shows the curve of the earth........ like.... the literal curve that you would say, "Hey, following this curve, the earth is obviously spheroid." Not to mention, that doesn't prove anything!
Firstly, you have no presented positive evidence besides. "Nasa could be lying" which isn't valid, towards not trusting Nasa.
Second, you have presented no evidence towards the claim that they had to ask for permission to release the video,
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
My point, is that whenever he "wins" a debate, he does not do it through actual valid ways, and his positions are empirically false and fallacious. The outcome of the debate matters less, than the actual arguments used, that's how you measure the skill of the debater. By how valid their actual arguments and rhetoric is
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
No, not particularly, whenever he is not in a setting where he can mute the microphone of his contender or somewhere where he can't shot gun his opponent, or a whole assortment of other dishonest tactics, he does quite badly, and the video I linked earlier pointed out the specific points to where he does so.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
I think Ben is a bad debater because of his tendency to back up his claims with faulty evidence, no evidence at all, hypotheticals which are actually false equivalences or gish gallops, and logical fallacies in general.
Created:
-->
@Juice
Matt Dillahunty, CosmicSkeptic "Alex O'Conner", RationalityRules "Steven Woodford"
Created:
-->
@Juice
Not well, Shapiro is a terrible example of a good debater, he's iconic for sure, but not very good.
Created:
-->
@Juice
Created: