Debate Challenge

[Edwardo Piet]

That's why you can't go down the street without being skull fucked by at least 20 atheists.

ohhhhhhhhhhh it all makes sense now.

And so THAT is why I don't get out much... fear of being skull-fucked....it has nothing to do with porn and wanking at all.

[ignoramus]

because as I said before, I think we all know what God is,

Either you know what God is or you don't.

[Red_Wind]

So it appears that I have to first define what God is in order to have a debate on his existence. That's fine. God is easy to define, and I'm not going to change anything from his traditional definition. You won't be surprised, because as I said before, I think we all know what God is, and I think this tactic of demanding a definition is just a typical dodge by atheists. But I will open a new topic so can define God and also lay out other terms for the debate.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god

Take your pick.

[I_am_not_mafia]

TruthIsGod, with all due respect, what do you hope to achieve. Do you think the whole forum will implode? I won a debate recently. My opponent was not able to defeat the 5 Ways of Aquinas. Some spectators claimed that he did a bad job and that they could have done better. They haven't. The Five Ways remain decisive.

You win a debate?

With the 5 ways of Aquinas??

<Goes off to google it.>

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/we...alysis.htm

I'll need to add that word salad to my thread on TTA where I take theist arguments and use them to 'prove' (by theist standards) that God does not exist.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-not-exist

So a quick glance at each of the arguments to point out where each one asserts something that is wrong.

1st way

1) Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Wrong. Google optical illusions to sense things moving when they do not. Our senses prove nothing. They are electrical signals in the brain. That's all.



2nd way

2) Nothing exists prior to itself.

Meaningless statement. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. See next statement.


3rd way

3) For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Wrong. The atoms were just rearranged in a different form and may have been combined with different atoms. See previous statement.


Fourth way:

4) Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Wrong. Leap of logic not supported by previous assertions and relies on equivocation of definition of God.


5th way:

1) We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

Wrong. Take brownian motion as an example. If there is any goal then it is not minimise free energy and to settle into a stable state. That is all.

[Brian37]

I found a couple articles where Aquinas was debunked.  Of course, the Wooters thinks he is omniscient.

Not that shit again!

When the believer cannot debunk science they drudge the swamp of antiquity pulling ambiguous quotes from the past claiming them as proof of the existence of their god. What is fucking stupid is that fans of every religion pull this shit.

You get Muslims pointing to Algebra as evidence for Allah. You get Hindus claiming to be older than everyone else. Jews do it too. 

And even si fi fans pull that shit with Star Trek claiming Roddenberry invented the modern cell phone. At least Star Trek fans don't start wars because I point that out.

Aquinas didn't know shit. If logic worked like that then the Greek polytheistic gods are real because they were the first to use the word "atom".

I am not posting this for obtuse believers, I am posting this for other atheists to consider so they can take that horrible "this guy was smart, so therefore" bullshit argument away from anyone of any religion.

Scientific method is completely independent from ALL religions, and is not there to prop up any religion. PERIOD.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to add to the pile of "failure"...in addressing the arguments offered by Aquinas...lol.

1. The unmoved mover.  It relies on the conjecture that infinite regress is impossible, and in that regard, it doesn't really matter if it makes a special pleading case (after all, god is supposed to be special).  Infinite regress, itself, is not impossible, infinite regress makes it impossible for logical operations to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.  Just because the tool doesn't work for the task at hand, doesn't mean that there is no task at hand.  Just because logic would be incapable of providing a satisfactory answer in the case of infinite regress, does not mean that infinite regress itself is impossible.  

2.  First cause.  Again, as above, the special pleading is secondary to the assumption that an infinite regress of cause is impossible.  What would be impossible, as above, is a satisfactory answer using logical operations...not, as above, an infinite regress of cause.  

3.  Contingency.  Yet....again......this argument implies that an infinite regress of cause is impossible, and yet again it fails because of this...if for no other reason. 

4.  From Degree.  This one, to me, is almost inexplicable.  It's not a logical argument at all.   The notion that because someone holds a set of value judgments, there must be a perfect example of their value judgement set, and that further this perfect example of their value judgement set is a god is a complete non-sequitur at every single step.  I have an idea of the perfect american, but this doesn't mean that the perfect american exists, or that if the perfect american -did- exist, it would be a god.  

5.   Teleological argument.  This one.....this one is flat out ignorant but I can actually see where Aquinas was coming from.  What other way did he have to explain what he saw as order or design in the universe or in life?  It's not as though he had physics or biology to refer to.......but we do, now.....so what are we talking about again, today?

In summary, it looks like your boy, Woot, was fluffing his manuscript, firstly. He doesn't actually have five ways, he has 3, 1-3 are the same argument. 4 is a full on retard moment....and 5 is forgivable ignorance, for him...but not us. Aquinas appears to have been a sincere man, earnestly searching for some logical explanation of the god he believed in, but...unfortunately, he also seems to have been a bit iffy on the mechanics of logic...and he could not have known what would take hundreds of years of development and research beyond his own lifetime /w regards to the natural world and it's processes.

This, to your mind...validates your worldview? I don't know what to say, other than to suggest you up your standards of validation. This, in your estimation, is the sort of wisdom that takes a significant investment in time to unpack, understand, or assess....it doesn't seem so from here, but I guess we all unpack, understand, and assess at our own paces? If you would like to maintain that you have some status, relative to the rest of us (and particularly in comparison to an atheist, for whatever reason), as an expert on this sort of wisdom..in what way would that be different from being an expert in ignorance and irrationality?

[robvalue]

Poor Aquaman. One more elbow drop and his head will explode.

[Lemonvariable72]

Why were truth is gods posting privileges revoked?

[JesusHChrist]

Well, that was QUITE the ass-kicking Truth in God delivered against the Heathen Hordes!

QUITE! /sarc

Another muddled-thinking, incoherent theist wanders in. Posts aimless nonsense. Posts gutted like a fish by Heathen Hordes. Becomes very still. Trots off to some other more appealing clime, such as Rapture Ready or CARM.

Hordes imbibe a nice doppel bock and talk about the weather.

[SteelCurtain]

Why were truth is gods posting privileges revoked?

He has violated a semi-serious forum rule. We are giving him the benefit of the doubt and giving him a chance to explain himself before we take action. During the grace period, he is not allowed to post.