(September 7, 2021 at 8:32 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Be very, very careful. Backpedaling that fast could get your trousers caught in the bike chain.

Boru

Well.. it's not anybody's fault if you misunderstand theism. If somebody says "this universe points to a God", then there are, if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt, hidden premises and presuppositions in their assertion. People don't spit syllogisms all the time when they explain their beliefs.

What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

(September 7, 2021 at 8:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The universe's existence is used as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God, not as direct evidence. Premise and evidence aren't the same thing.

I reject the premise. Back to arguing god into existence I see, very naughty.

What else ya got?

Funny OP should write for The Babylon Bee.

(September 7, 2021 at 8:44 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

And yet my request remains. I don't care how you define god anymore than how you define dragons.

(September 7, 2021 at 8:49 pm)brewer Wrote:

(September 7, 2021 at 8:44 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

And yet my request remains. I don't care how you define god anymore then how you define dragons.

I love how he thinks he can define the issue away. As if that makes his case any better 

---

(September 7, 2021 at 8:47 pm)Foxaire Wrote: Funny OP should write for The Babylon Bee.

Oh come now they have standards 

---

(September 7, 2021 at 8:47 pm)brewer Wrote:

(September 7, 2021 at 8:24 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: The universe's existence is used as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God, not as direct evidence. Premise and evidence aren't the same thing.

I reject the premise. Back to arguing god into existence I see, very naughty.

What else ya got?

Nothing if he did have something better we would have seen it by now 

(September 7, 2021 at 7:56 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(September 7, 2021 at 7:46 pm)brewer Wrote: Show me concrete evidence for god

Category mistake: asking for concrete/empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical being.

Your request is logically invalid

Translation, asking for evidence of existence for an non-existent being.

(September 7, 2021 at 7:56 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Category mistake: asking for concrete/empirical evidence for the existence of a non-empirical being.

That means there can not be and never will be any actual evidence of this being. All the "evidence" you have is based on intangible things, like experiences or feelings or thoughts or sensations, etc. These thing might be fine for you, as an individual, but can not be transferred to another person. Unless another person "experiences" these same things as you, they have no justification for belief in this being. They simply have to take your word for it.

(September 7, 2021 at 7:35 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Hey there,

When I first became interested in the questions of theology, God's existence, etc. I used to hold the atheist position in high regard, it looked like a very logical position to endorse when one isn't convinced of some particular account of God. I started to become highly suspicious of that when I discovered that all the big objections to theism simply fail miserably. 

A better way to show why these objections are really bad is to apply them to anything, to show that anything can't exist. So, let's rule out the existence of peanut butter;

Argument from the diversity of peanuts:

P1: There are many subspecies/types of peanuts. Each type has particular properties, a different taste, a different pod structure and variable seed sizes
P2: Peanut butter is so sweet that its sweetness should uniformly have the same miraculous taste for all mankind

C: peanut butter can't exist because it's incoherent

Argument from peanut evil :

P1: An ensnared fawn caught wildfire, the fawn is burned to death, it must have suffered heavily
P2: Something that tastes as sweet as peanut butter wouldn't let a fawn suffer, this food is too sweet to coexist with evil

C: peanut butter can't exist because of evil

Argument from peanut butter's hiddenness:

P1: Peanut butter isn't available in my local area.
P2: Peanut butter is so sweet that it wouldn't leave someone in my area who craves for it unsatisfied

C: peanut butter isn't that sweet after all

As you can see, these ridiculous arguments hardly differ from the objections we hear often aimed at undermining theism. Arguing from evil is by definition arguing from ignorance, when philosophers endorsing atheism became aware of that, they came up with an ad-hoc distinction between justified evil and unnecessary evil, which is, again, another fat fallacy of arguing from ignorance, because they can't prove that some instance of evil is unnecessary without begging the question. The issue of hiddenness is very similar because it presupposes that there can't be any good reason for God not directly revealing Himself to our senses. Finally, religious diversity is probably the most ridiculous of all three, simply because many conflicting accounts of the divine doesn't mean that they are all false, nor does it undermine any of God's properties.

All this simply means that atheology fails, whereas theology provides many compelling arguments/reasons to believe in God. Theism is the only acceptable worldview. QED.

Do you know what a Strawman is?

(September 7, 2021 at 9:54 pm)Spongebob Wrote: Do you know what a Strawman is?

A man made of straw?

All this time and @Klorophyll still can’t grasp the concept of “burden of proof.”

#sad