(October 23, 2017 at 10:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 23, 2017 at 9:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You know, MK...for something to be an argument..there are standards.  It's silly to call whatever profession of faith catches your fancy an argument.

An argument just has to prove something to be true to be a good argument.  Any other standards we make are arbitrary.

Please explain your "proof."

(October 23, 2017 at 11:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 23, 2017 at 10:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: An argument just has to prove something to be true to be a good argument.  Any other standards we make are arbitrary.

Please explain your "proof."

Regarding what?

(October 23, 2017 at 10:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(October 23, 2017 at 9:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You know, MK...for something to be an argument..there are standards.  It's silly to call whatever profession of faith catches your fancy an argument.

An argument just has to prove something to be true to be a good argument.  Any other standards we make are arbitrary.

Well, that's convenient for us. By that standard, zero god arguments are good ones. They all reduce to "if [insert god here] doesn't exist, this argument doesn't work. Therefore it must exist".

Put another way, there are no arguments for the existence of gods; only arguments trying to prove that the arguments work.

(October 24, 2017 at 6:41 am)Cyberman Wrote:

(October 23, 2017 at 10:04 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: An argument just has to prove something to be true to be a good argument.  Any other standards we make are arbitrary.

Well, that's convenient for us. By that standard, zero god arguments are good ones. They all reduce to "if [insert god here] doesn't exist, this argument doesn't work. Therefore it must exist".

Put another way, there are no arguments for the existence of gods; only arguments trying to prove that the arguments work.

To wit: just look at the dismal trajectory of recent Christian apologetics. The game now is to develop a ‘cumulative’ case for God’s existence or, even more minimally, to argue that god belief isn’t irrational in its face.

Poor MK is trying to assert the reasonableness of centuries-old horseshit with 19th Century apologists’ tools — tools that came to be seen as passé a long time ago. He should tear a page out of the Protestant playbook and set his sights much lower. Allah may not approve, but Jesus would understand.

If my god doesn't exist, I wouldn't be trying to prove it does.
This is a logical argument intended to prove its existence.
Therefore my god exists.

(October 24, 2017 at 7:06 am)Cyberman Wrote: If my god doesn't exist, I wouldn't be trying to prove it does.
This is a logical argument intended to prove its existence.
Therefore my god exists.

Logic tool kits really should come with warning labels and age advisories. People can get hurt from their misuse.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Clare Balding's looking a bit rough these days and is desperate to take any job thrown at her.
Therefore wishes are horses.

(October 24, 2017 at 7:14 am)Cyberman Wrote: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Clare Balding's looking a bit rough these days and is desperate to take any job thrown at her.
Therefore wishes are horses.

Sounds solid. Where do I send my prayer offering?

I'll send you my PayPal details.

(October 23, 2017 at 9:24 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I find the witness argument the most convincing, but there are many arguments I haven't even present that are in Quran.

What sort of witness arguments are you referring to?

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. The amount of experiments that have been done to show how easy it is to fool people that they saw something they didn't, or miss something obvious they should have seen, are mountainous.

Quote:I am not convinced you guys are honest to yourselves or others. I am not convinced you don't know God exists. I am convinced you deceive yourselves and cover up sacred knowledge by superficial mask you mask yourself with and ignorance you hold on to with no rational reason.

Well, get over your beliefs about us. I am absolutely not convinced that gods exist.

My reasons for disbelieving in the existence of gods, is based entirely on rationality and reason. My disbelief in the existence of gods is a byproduct of critical thinking and skepticism.

YOu are the one that relies on witness accounts, ancient texts written by ignorant tribesmen, and flawed arguments, which is the definition of irrationality.

Quote:If I believe your doubt was rational, I would doubt God myself, but I don't believe it is.

My disbelief in the existence of gods is based on theists not living up to their burden of proof when they make their case for the existence of gods. Which is an entirely rational reason to disbelieve existential claims.