Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:48 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Apologetics open challenge
#1
Apologetics open challenge
I feel almost certain that all forms of religious/theistic apologetics/arguments are flawed, in one way or another. So I'm putting it to the test. Please post any arguments about religion or a general God that you think are valid, and I will analyse them. They can be about whatever aspect you like, anything that demonstrates them to be something outside of your own imagination.

I will be looking for dishonest techniques and logical fallacies. As soon as I find one, I will highlight it, explain the problem, and stop. You are then welcome to amend your argument and resubmit it. There are many common problems I am likely to highlight, so please familiarise yourself with them on my website here. If you don't understand why any of them are dishonest/broken thinking, please ask. They are important for anyone who cares if their arguments are valid.

If I can't find a mistake, I will concede that your argument is valid. Don't bother with mundane arguments such as "Religion does charity, and charity is good". Yes, that is true. I'm not going to argue with such statements, but they don't prove anything about the truth of religion.

You can use any argument, either your own or from your favourite apologetic. But like I say, I'll identify one error then stop. If it's a concise argument, I may highlight several errors if present.

Go! The challenge is open. Other counter-apologists are welcome to step in on my behalf to identify errors if they so wish. But this is intended to be about the validity of arguments, rather than full rebuttals.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#2
RE: Apologetics open challenge
It should be noted that arguments can be valid, but premises are false. Validity comes cheap. For example:
If apes exist, cats speak English. If P, Q.
Apes exist. P
Therefore, cats speak English. Q
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot

We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
Reply
#3
RE: Apologetics open challenge
Oh yes, for sure. Good point. Unsupported assertions will be pointed out, they are on my list Smile But it's very true, the argument can still be valid. The result is then only as true as its premises.

WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#4
RE: Apologetics open challenge
(1) God sounds like bog
(2) I'm a tree
(3) why are there still monkeys
(4) therefore Cthulhu

CHECKMATE HEATHENS
Reply
#5
RE: Apologetics open challenge
(July 20, 2015 at 4:08 am)robvalue Wrote: WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.

[Image: if-you-cant-convince-them-confuse-them.jpg]
Reply
#6
RE: Apologetics open challenge
My old classic.

Jesus was a man
Stimbo is a man
Therefore Stimbo is blown out of Min's arse!

Sorry Stim, just trying to get a point across, your name came up.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#7
RE: Apologetics open challenge
(July 20, 2015 at 4:10 am)Neimenovic Wrote: (1) God sounds like bog
(2) I'm a tree
(3) why are there still monkeys
(4) therefore Cthulhu

CHECKMATE HEATHENS

That's the best argument I've heard for some time. I'll give it some thought. It's a squid or something right?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#8
RE: Apologetics open challenge
Haha! Squids can't talk! Gotcha.

*Twiddles thumbs*
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#9
RE: Apologetics open challenge
We don't know how something happens therefore it must be god.

Also morals.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#10
RE: Apologetics open challenge
(July 20, 2015 at 4:06 am)Pizza Wrote: It should be noted that arguments can be valid, but premises are false. Validity comes cheap. For example:
If apes exist, cats speak English. If P, Q.
Apes exist. P
Therefore, cats speak English. Q

(July 20, 2015 at 4:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Oh yes, for sure. Good point. Unsupported assertions will be pointed out, they are on my list Smile But it's very true, the argument can still be valid. The result is then only as true as its premises.

WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.

-That- one's not actually an issue of an -unsupported assertion-.  It's a mechanical issue of -material implication- whereby the "if" modifier is being leveraged improperly.  Because an argument (of the type invoked) is only said to be valid when it takes a form wherein it is impossible for the assertions to be true while the conclusion is simultaneously false, and because an argument (of the type invoked) requires a specific condition which is not present...........that argument is actually -invalid-.

Validity doesn't come cheap, people have simplistic and incomplete concepts of validity, is all. "If p, then q" works as a simple description of a logical operation divorced from conditionals in natural language.......but that's the end of it's utility. The trouble is the inference of conditionals in natural language, and their translation to a logical form. If this doesn't -already- make it sound hopeless...I have some bad news......english might be one of the worst languages in the world on that count. There is no such trouble with the "if" modifier in other languages. That means that some of us are suffering from a handicap not uniform to all of us, and ironically that;s the problem with the word "if" in english. It does not describe a uniform condition, and theres no way of ensuring that the condition it descibes is the appropriate condition for the operation used, as in the statement regarding apes, cats.....and whether or not they speak english....

(for more, google downing, wilson, or goldstein et al - or, for some heavier reading not limited to this subject but containing one of the best explanations -of it- try "Causality and Determinism" by Von Wright)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A critical thinking challenge Foxaèr 18 4193 June 15, 2018 at 12:09 pm
Last Post: Drich
  A challenge to anyone I guess! Mystic 27 5075 June 10, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Last Post: Mystic
  Liberalism's Great Challenge? Minimalist 20 3258 September 10, 2016 at 2:39 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  A challenge to any and all religions collectively. Brian37 24 4451 May 2, 2016 at 7:53 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Pre-Suppositional Christian Apologetics SpecUVdust 11 2561 November 14, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Last Post: SpecUVdust
  The Greatest Challenge to Atheists Ever The Valkyrie 32 6636 October 19, 2015 at 9:36 am
Last Post: loganonekenobi
  Open Origin Religions? Brometheus 26 5368 April 6, 2015 at 10:33 am
Last Post: Aractus
  A simple challenge for atheists bob96 775 107707 February 20, 2015 at 11:17 pm
Last Post: goodwithoutgod
  Challenge to christians: Satan wrote the bible robvalue 120 22678 February 15, 2015 at 5:13 am
Last Post: emilynghiem
  Challenge For Theists Nope 65 11841 February 11, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)