Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Alluding to a vague contradiction in your opponent's argument is much less convincing than answering direct questions that undermine the core of what you're proposing. But I guess you've got to work with what you have.
You are to be commended for your honesty. You've acknowledged the contradiction. A contradictory argument is obviously a non-argument i.e., fallacious argument.
Well said.
However, as I recall, all of the "direct questions" were answered. In the unlikely event that I missed any, please feel free to take this opportunity to point them out.
You are to be commended for your honesty. You've acknowledged the contradiction. A contradictory argument is obviously a non-argument i.e., fallacious argument.
Well said.
However, as I recall, all of the "direct questions" were answered. In the unlikely event that I missed any, please feel free to take this opportunity to point them out.
You know very well there were no contradictions in my points.As far as unanswered questions,the best you could do with the question of why God does not make His presence so obvious that no one could mistake it was never tackle in any way but some lame facetious remark about wanting Jesus to hold my hand.Care to try an adult response,or is all you got a bunch of whining and false statements about the past debate?
If you can act like an adult this time around I'll be glad to join in a restart.But only if you act so,and agree to a 2 way discussion instead of a constant rehashing of the only point you seem to have.
I am seriously tired of this same old argument repeated ad nauseum as proof for the existance of god:
(from the linked article) "Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the Earth." (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University)"
Well yea, that would be something. But what if you threw the scoop a million times, a billion times, a trillion times, a quadrillion times? How many stars are there in the universe? How many planets? Conservative guesses say there are around 10 sextillion planets in the universe. That's A LOT.
Are are the letters necessary to complete the phrase in the pile? If so, there is a chance it will come up at least once if the scoop is repeatedly thrown long enough.
This does NOT prove a god created life. The universe is big enough to make such odds possible. And if we were the lucky number, we would never know any different.
What are the odds of a scoop of anything being thrown out on the lawn and it making a god?????
Last edited by jeffington; 04-22-2011 at 09:46 AM..
You know very well there were no contradictions in my points.
Post#31: In your initial objection to the cosmological argument for the existence of God, you basically assert hyper-causality. In other words, your argument is that one must also assert cause for God i.e., all things must have a cause if one is going to argue for a cause.
Post#95: Here you assert that energy and matter are not contingent. In other words, energy and matter are exempted from needing a cause.
Which is it? Do all things need to have a cause or are some things exempted from needing a cause. If some things are exempted from needing a cause then why would it be illogical to argue for the necessity of a first cause agent? If all things need a cause then how is it logical to argue for the eternal existence of matter and energy?
If one is going to argue for a never ending (eternal) repetition of cause and effect then, as I stated in post#47, I would be interested in a rebuttal to Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan
As far as unanswered questions,the best you could do with the question of why God does not make His presence so obvious that no one could mistake it was never tackle in any way but some lame facetious remark about wanting Jesus to hold my hand.
I will freely admit that I never answered this question...because it was never asked. Also, you may want to reacquaint yourself with the title of the discussion thread. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your question.
My only assertion has been that the Christian (theistic) world view is logical and reasonable. I keep looking for someone such as yourself to explain or back up the assertion that the atheistic view is logical and reasonable - in vain apparently.
In post#64 I placed all my cards on the table. Nothing fancy, simply a rehash of the classical arguments for the existence of God. This was basically a reassertion of post#16 where I attempted to save time by questioning any objections that may exist over the basic historical reliability of scripture. You insisted on taking things one step at a time -remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan
If you can act like an adult this time around I'll be glad to join in a restart.But only if you act so,and agree to a 2 way discussion instead of a constant rehashing of the only point you seem to have.
Are you able to produce anything new in the way of ad hominem remarks? These are beginning to get old. But hey, if it's all you've got or it makes you feel better - go with it.
Post#31: In your initial objection to the cosmological argument for the existence of God, you basically assert hyper-causality. In other words, your argument is that one must also assert cause for God i.e., all things must have a cause if one is going to argue for a cause.
Post#95: Here you assert that energy and matter are not contingent. In other words, energy and matter are exempted from needing a cause.
Which is it? Do all things need to have a cause or are some things exempted from needing a cause. If some things are exempted from needing a cause then why would it be illogical to argue for the necessity of a first cause agent? If all things need a cause then how is it logical to argue for the eternal existence of matter and energy?
No contradiction at all.Merely you trying to take what is said out of context.
What I said,very plainly,is that the rules apply to both sides.If you can ask what the first cause is for materialism,I can ask what the first cause is for God,therefore that argument is a stalemate.If your answer is God has always existed,then the answer that the energy that is the basis for all matter has also always existed is just as legitimate.No contradiction,just an insistence on fairness,which seems to irk you.,being as the first cause argument seems to be the only argument in your arsenal.
Originally Posted by lifertexan
As far as unanswered questions,the best you could do with the question of why God does not make His presence so obvious that no one could mistake it was never tackle in any way but some lame facetious remark about wanting Jesus to hold my hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I will freely admit that I never answered this question...because it was never asked.
And now the lies start.From post 98 this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan
If God exists AND desires we know it (a prerequisite for desiring our worship,no?),then why isn't His existence obvious?And please don't make the lame claim it is to all who would look.Nobody denies the Sun,the moon,gravity,the effects of inertia,etc.Obvious stuff is....well...obvious.Beyond doubt.And save the "just look at creation and all it's beauty" argument.Science has shown that evolution caused nature,all the way back to the Big Bang,so this is just a circle back to the first cause debate.
So,why isn't God so obvious none could deny Him?This does not mean forced worship or belief,but just why He does not make Himself obvious beyond doubt to all?
Didn't get asked,huh?
*sigh*
I really don't know why I waste time with you.What makes this so bad is that it is such a willful lie,since you DID try a lame remark in response to the question you claim was never asked.Your response in post 101 this thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Presumably, you would be expecting Jesus to appear in the flesh, lead you down to the nearest body of water and proceed to do a breakdance on the surface - or some such thing. Sounds like a personal problem. What would any of this have to do with putting forward a reasoned and logical rebuttal to the cause argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I keep looking for someone such as yourself to explain or back up the assertion that the atheistic view is logical and reasonable - in vain apparently.
I keep looking for someone to have this discussion with a measure of honesty and integrity,quite obviously in vain.
Last edited by lifertexan; 04-23-2011 at 09:47 AM..
Logic says everything in the natural world has a cause.
Actually no. It is suspected that human beings tend to search for causes and because they are found in a number of cases, it is suspected that a first cause must exist. Erroneous logic spoken here. "IF", one of the better words in the English language when properly applied, does not apply in all things, and because it is so applicable in so many ways, it is not always a given to a truthful explanation. Yes, there are stars, planets, weeds, flowers, fruit trees, bees, a wide variety of natural things, some living, some not, the mere existence of any object does not necessitate the existence of some sort of diety. Evolution is an extremely slow process, mountains also evolve, worked on and shaped by natural forces. The most common of natural forces are gravity, wind, tidal activity and other geographical forces (continental drift, volcanic activity, earthquake, wind, precipitation in its' various forms, and sunlight, perhaps one of the greatest forces of evolution) Life appeared on this planet in a form that was able to utilize the natural resources found here, not exactly a miracle, it took billions of years of life slowly, very slowly adapting itself to earths' environment. To assume that some mystical sky daddy waved a wand and said "POOF" is just as absurd a notion as is Pandora and her box.
If God exists AND desires we know it (a prerequisite for desiring our worship,no?),then why isn't His existence obvious?And please don't make the lame claim it is to all who would look.Nobody denies the Sun,the moon,gravity,the effects of inertia,etc.Obvious stuff is....well...obvious.Beyond doubt.And save the "just look at creation and all it's beauty" argument.Science has shown that evolution caused nature,all the way back to the Big Bang,so this is just a circle back to the first cause debate.
So,why isn't God so obvious none could deny Him?This does not mean forced worship or belief,but just why He does not make Himself obvious beyond doubt to all?
In it's original context it was obviously posed rhetorically. In other words, you already presumed to know the answer by merely postulating the question. You were attempting to make the point (rather unimaginatively) that supposedly, because God's existence isn't "obvious" then, logically, we must conclude that God doesn't exist.
...but now, seeing that you're scraping the bottom of the barrel searching for supposed unanswered questions, I'll answer the question which you now choose to pose as nothing more than a simple honest question from a person of integrity seeking an honest response:
Answer: Again, you make the presumption that God's existence has not been made obvious. We apparently disagree over what it is that would constitute obvious or empirical proof. One person may state (reasoning from the apparent vast complexity of the cell) that a person need look no further than the end of there own nose in order to see empirical proof for the existence of God. Others, such as yourself, would obviously beg to differ. As I stated repeatedly, such things tend to be subjective. Refusal to accept the "obvious" would not automatically negate the truth of that which in fact constitutes something that is plainly apparent (obvious).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan
No contradiction at all.Merely you trying to take what is said out of context.
What I said,very plainly,is that the rules apply to both sides.If you can ask what the first cause is for materialism,I can ask what the first cause is for God,therefore that argument is a stalemate.If your answer is God has always existed,then the answer that the energy that is the basis for all matter has also always existed is just as legitimate.No contradiction,just an insistence on fairness,which seems to irk you.,being as the first cause argument seems to be the only argument in your arsenal.
If your original post was taken out of context, you're attempt here to clarify really isn't much help. Yes, one can posit or choose to believe in the eternal existence of most anything. I would simply ask for a logical reason as to why you would choose to believe in the eternal existence of matter and energy. Do you have any knowledge of any scientific data that would back this up or, is it simply because you're already invested in a world view that has no room for the Judeo-Christian God?
I didn't invent the classical arguments for God's existence. I didn't invent the Bible, Jesus and Christianity. In other words, this isn't my personal argument being posed as personal opinion or personal view. I'm merely affirming my belief in such to be reasonable. Other than asserting your vague personal views and misgivings concerning the cosmological argument you apparently refuse to have the discussion. All the arguments are out there and have been for literally hundreds of years. Again, I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree over the cosmological argument and move on...or to continue to debate the cause argument. I am not, nor have I ever demanded proof or evidence. Just that you provide your reasons for rejecting these arguments...or, that you would provide any scientific empirical data that, in your opinion, would support your view.
I'm also at a loss to understand your repeated references to the topic of evolution. We've been discussing the question of cause or why it is that anything exists rather than nothing. It just seems to me, that in order for something to evolve, it must first come to exist.
In it's original context it was obviously posed rhetorically.
Uh,no it was not.I asked,so I should know.I have now moved on to asking the question as a separate thread due to your lack of anything more intelligent than a sarcastic remark.And please spare me the lame "I thought it was rhetorical" stuff.You DID attempt a lame answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
In other words, you already presumed to know the answer by merely postulating the question. You were attempting to make the point (rather unimaginatively) that supposedly, because God's existence isn't "obvious" then, logically, we must conclude that God doesn't exist.
Actually,the point was more about the PROOF of God's existence rather than the fact of His existence.But yes,if PROOF of His existence isn't obvious,then the logical conclusion would be that the proof doesn't exist.And you have offered nothing to change this.
[quote=tigetmax24;18855884]Answer: Again, you make the presumption that God's existence has not been made obvious. We apparently disagree over what it is that would constitute obvious or empirical proof. One person may state (reasoning from the apparent vast complexity of the cell) that a person need look no further than the end of there own nose in order to see empirical proof for the existence of God. Others, such as yourself, would obviously beg to differ. As I stated repeatedly, such things tend to be subjective. Refusal to accept the "obvious" would not automatically negate the truth of that which in fact constitutes something that is plainly apparent (obvious).{/quote]
For all your attempted intelligent sounding response,you've said nothing.Obvious is obvious,to all.As I have said on the other thread,nobody denies the existence of the Sun,the moon,gravity,inertia,etc.You and your ilk want to change the definition of the word to suit your need.But obvious means obvious.Noticeabale to all.2+2=4.Jump off a 100 story building and die when you hit the ground.Try breathing underwater and drown.That kind of obvious,not your made up definition.And you fail at providing anything that is obvious.Because if it was,there would not be billions around the world who did not believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If your original post was taken out of context, you're attempt here to clarify really isn't much help. Yes, one can posit or choose to believe in the eternal existence of most anything. I would simply ask for a logical reason as to why you would choose to believe in the eternal existence of matter and energy. Do you have any knowledge of any scientific data that would back this up or, is it simply because you're already invested in a world view that has no room for the Judeo-Christian God?
I didn't invent the classical arguments for God's existence. I didn't invent the Bible, Jesus and Christianity. In other words, this isn't my personal argument being posed as personal opinion or personal view. I'm merely affirming my belief in such to be reasonable. Other than asserting your vague personal views and misgivings concerning the cosmological argument you apparently refuse to have the discussion. All the arguments are out there and have been for literally hundreds of years. Again, I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree over the cosmological argument and move on...or to continue to debate the cause argument. I am not, nor have I ever demanded proof or evidence. Just that you provide your reasons for rejecting these arguments...or, that you would provide any scientific empirical data that, in your opinion, would support your view.
.
Look up the law of conservation of energy.I did not,btw,write that myself for the purpose of debating you.But it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.And that,my friend,is a scientific law that has withstood decades of study,unlike your cosmological argument which is not in any way provable but merely an opinion of apologists.
Last edited by lifertexan; 04-23-2011 at 02:58 PM..
For all your attempted intelligent sounding response,you've said nothing.Obvious is obvious,to all.As I have said on the other thread,nobody denies the existence of the Sun,the moon,gravity,inertia,etc.You and your ilk want to change the definition of the word to suit your need.But obvious means obvious.Noticeable to all.2+2=4.Jump off a 100 story building and die when you hit the ground.Try breathing underwater and drown.That kind of obvious,not your made up definition.And you fail at providing anything that is obvious.Because if it was,there would not be billions around the world who did not believe.
Stay with me here. We don't disagree over the meaning of the word 'obvious'...capisce? Certain things do fall into the category of the unknown, unsubstantiated or not clearly defined. For instance, is it "obvious" that matter and energy are eternal? There was a time when it wasn't considered obvious that the sun was the center of the solar system or that the earth revolved around it. You won't find any argument from me over the concept of truth or that which corresponds to reality. I'll leave that argument to the Buddhists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan
Look up the law of conservation of energy.I did not,btw,write that myself for the purpose of debating you.But it states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.And that,my friend,is a scientific law that has withstood decades of study,unlike your cosmological argument which is not in any way provable but merely an opinion of theologists.
Excerpt from the Law of Conservation of Energy:
"...the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time."
Does our known physical universe equate to an isolated system?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
