(April 6, 2013 at 11:23 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 5, 2013 at 5:51 pm)pocaracas Wrote: How would have access to this knowledge about this god entity?

Isn't it obvious? You know Unmoved Mover and all that.

So...The point where God's will shifted from one decision to another? The time implied that there was a point where he willed the universe into existance from a time that he didn't? Does this not suggest that God too was subject to change and time?

(May 11, 2013 at 12:49 am)Maelstrom Wrote: To state that there is a case for theism is akin to stating that there is a case for murder. Granted, murderers often get acquitted during trial, and in such an imperfect world with an imperfect justice system one cannot expect perfection in matters of intelligence when related to matters of religion. In a perfect world, there would be no murder, there would be no religious people. In an imperfect world where murderers are free to continue killing, one must expect that religious people are also free to continue spreading their ignorance.

This is a blatant logical fallacy. You're attempting to make an inductive argument from analogy, but the analogy you have presented is poorly suited; it is a faulty generalisation. Theism, and making a case for such, is strongly linked to the philosophical discipline of epistemology. Murder, and making a case for such, bares no relevance to epistemology, but rather ethics/moral philosophy.

(May 11, 2013 at 9:07 am)Love Wrote: This is a blatant logical fallacy. You're attempting to make an inductive argument from analogy, but the analogy you have presented is poorly suited; it is a faulty generalisation. Theism, and making a case for such, is strongly linked to the philosophical discipline of epistemology. Murder, and making a case for such, bares no relevance to epistemology, but rather ethics/moral philosophy.

I will agree that it was a bit of a stretch, But, I think he had a point. He was saying that murder is innately a defined term as wrong, and that any attempt to justify it by making a "case" for it, would be by definition, wrong as murder is a defined term. Theism, is only shown true to the bearer of the belief through faith, so to suggest that there is a "case" for it or that it can be proven to others, is equally absurd.

I do not thik he was comparing theists to murderers

Would you care to put forth an argument to illustrate that this is an incorrect assessment?

(May 11, 2013 at 9:32 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Would you care to put forth an argument to illustrate that this is an incorrect assessment?

I have already done that. I pointed out that his argument is a logical fallacy and is, thus, ultimately invalid. An existential argument for the existence of God, for example in the form of a rational discussion, bares no relevance to moral philosophy, but rather epistemology — or more specifically existential/epistemological apologetics. Making a case for murder would ultimately be encapsulated within the conceptual framework of moral philosophy; murder is a moral issue, not epistemological.

(May 11, 2013 at 10:48 am)Love Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 9:32 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Would you care to put forth an argument to illustrate that this is an incorrect assessment?

I have already done that. I pointed out that his argument is a logical fallacy and is, thus, ultimately invalid. An existential argument for the existence of God, for example in the form of a rational discussion, bares no relevance to moral philosophy, but rather epistemology — or more specifically existential/epistemological apologetics. Making a case for murder would ultimately be encapsulated within the conceptual framework of moral philosophy; murder is a moral issue, not epistemological.

I'll give you that. But I think you've over thought it. Sometimes the most simple interpretation is the one that applies. In society we have rules and definitions acts that constitute crimes. Defending yourself from an accusation of murder and making a case for murder, are two completely different things. Here is where the disconnect lies. Do you agree? Such as making a case for rape? or making a case for child molestatioin? Do you agree that the word "case" in this context bears a different application?

---

(May 11, 2013 at 11:04 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:

(May 11, 2013 at 10:48 am)Love Wrote: I have already done that. I pointed out that his argument is a logical fallacy and is, thus, ultimately invalid. An existential argument for the existence of God, for example in the form of a rational discussion, bares no relevance to moral philosophy, but rather epistemology — or more specifically existential/epistemological apologetics. Making a case for murder would ultimately be encapsulated within the conceptual framework of moral philosophy; murder is a moral issue, not epistemological.

I'll give you that. But I think you've over thought it. Sometimes the most simple interpretation is the one that applies. In society we have rules and definitions acts that constitute crimes. Defending yourself from an accusation of murder and making a case for murder, are two completely different things. Here is where the disconnect lies. Do you agree? Such as making a case for rape? or making a case for child molestatioin? Do you agree that the word "case" in this context bears a different application?

His analogy does have merit here. He has made a distinction between the two applications of the word "case" that doesn't quite fit the description of the discussion. The subject of the case be it murder, rape, child molestation...etc, is really irrelavant as these things are things that are inherently unjustified (within the social-contract paradigm apart from our opinion of them) and cannot be justified with a case once the act has been classified as such, similarly, the belief in Theism, cannot be justified by making a "case" using evidence because the belief can only be confirmed by the believer's own capacity for faith. These are two instances where a case is not an applicable form of resolution. No case can be made for such a thing, unless you believe you have one that doesn't stem from logical fallacy?
Did I miss where you made a solid argument for the existance of God, I saw that you wanted to clarify that such an argument would be presented in a ratioinal discussion such as this, but I did not see the argument.

Being that this thread is 33 pages long and I'm getting here late, I'm going to consider the middle 20 or so tl;dr so I can jump right in. Please let me know if this has been brought up before.

Theists often put forth the teleological argument (argument from design), saying that life was the end purpose for God creating the universe. A famous example is finding a watch on a beach and knowing that it has a designer. It gets advanced further by some people, sometimes crossing with the probability of life coming into existence, in claiming that complex machines like cars and planes need a designer and couldn't be produced by a tornado in a junk yard.

The question I always want to throw in there when this argument comes up is this: Cars, watches, and stone blocks were all designed with a particular function in mind. If life really shows signs of artifice, what is that function?

The universe, if anything, appears to be perfectly designed to produce black holes, not life.

Theism is really just another form of credulous superstition.

(May 11, 2013 at 11:04 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: Did I miss where you made a solid argument for the existance of God, I saw that you wanted to clarify that such an argument would be presented in a ratioinal discussion such as this, but I did not see the argument.

I think you might be missing my point somewhat. I was writing with a very focused concentration on the analogical argument. Let's put it another way using two very similar examples. To state that there is a case for the existence of aliens is akin to stating that there is a case for theft. It makes no sense whatsoever. It is an attempt at an inductive argument by analogy, but results in a false analogy because the analogy is poorly suited.

(May 11, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Praetorian Wrote: The question I always want to throw in there when this argument comes up is this: Cars, watches, and stone blocks were all designed with a particular function in mind. If life really shows signs of artifice, what is that function?

Oh ye of little faith.... it is all in the book:

Quote:Although often mistaken for a planet, Earth is in reality the greatest supercomputer of all time, designed by the second greatest supercomputer of all time, Deep Thought, to calculate the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything (to which the answer is 42). It was built by the then-thriving custom planet industry of Magrathea to run a ten-million-year program in which organic life would play a major role. Slartibartfast, a Magrathean designer, was involved in the project and signed his name among the fjords of Norway (an area that won him an award).

(May 11, 2013 at 12:30 pm)Praetorian Wrote: The universe, if anything, appears to be perfectly designed to produce black holes, not life.

The function of the universe is clearly the dispersion of energy.