Debate: God Exists

[Mister Agenda]

It's always so fucking ridiculous when theists use God as an explanation for things when God is what needs an explanation and other things already have explanations.

Go on then,...explain why causes have regular effects (for example).

Are you going for an argument from ignorance here? If no one can provide a natural explanation, yours is more likely to be true? You KNOW that doesn't have the slightest bearing on whether your explanation is true. I know you know that.

---

See that's what I'm talking about. Y'all  have either no alternative explanations (duh...i donno) or appeal to brute facts ('cause it does dats why.)

That's how we avoid making arguments from ignorance. You should try it sometime.

[pocaracas]

How about you prove that a god is required for any of those things.
No argument from ignorance allowed. (because that's a fallacious argument, you know...)

I have done so in so many places that I have grown weary of it. Besides there is a difference between proving with absolute certainty (especially, with people who deny to there are absolutes) and the best explanation. If you're going to say that God is not the best explanation then it is reasonable for me to ask with what are you making comparison?

God would be, at best, a tentative explanation. One that would require some more evidence to be accepted.
Kinda like string theory...
We: Everything is made up of 11-dimensional strings? really?! prove it, scientist!
Scientist: I'm working on it... gimme a break!


There, until it is proven, the scientist can play all he wants with the speculative nature of the hypothesis... but we, the public, shouldn't act like mindless drones and say, "Yes, yes... the strings exist. A scientist says so, so he's right! They must! They are the only thing that can bring a whole bunch of universal features into focus!"


No, it's silly.

---

How about you prove that a god is required for any of those things.
No argument from ignorance allowed. (because that's a fallacious argument, you know...)

A rational explanation that ties a lot of things together in a cohesive manner does not demand to be a requirement. Science, that many here often reference, is based on assumptions, parameters, accepting some level of unknowns.

Neo-Schlolastic is proposing a position for theism, its plausibility, how theism answers some important philosophical questions, as compared to an atheistic response.

Yes, and I'm saying that the hypothesis posited by him need not be the unique answer.
It may be the answer... but it also may not be.
I'm asking how can you tell?

[Amarok]

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:See that's what I'm talking about. Y'all  have either no alternative explanations (duh...i donno) or appeal to brute facts ('cause it does dats why.)

Oh my god we propose things like looking for REAL answer rather then inventing make believe stories about magic and mystery

And shock except what the universe plainly shows as antiquate rather the adding pixie dust

What fools we are

[Cyberman]

See that's what I'm talking about. Y'all have either no alternative explanations (duh...i donno) or appeal to brute facts ('cause it does dats why.)

But that's the whole point. It's not necessary to jump to the contrapositive in order not to accept an assertion. In fact, without justification it's downright irrational.

If you say you don't believe that Richie did the murder, is that saying you believe Eddie did it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Go on then,...explain why causes have regular effects (for example).

Are you going for an argument from ignorance here? If no one can provide a natural explanation, yours is more likely to be true? You KNOW that doesn't have the slightest bearing on whether your explanation is true. I know you know that.

I'm not attempting to prove that God exists. I am saying that the existence of God is most plausible explanation for the most fundamental questions of human existence. If you have no explanations for those things, then by default God is the best explanation. This has nothing to do with the 'lack of belief' issue. If you believe my conclusions do not follow from the evidence then you should be able to identify the reasons why you believe I have drawn the wrong conclusion.

For example, people who have dedicated their lives to meditation and contemplative prayer have all reported a connection with a divine Other. The reports are similar regardless of whether the practitioners are Hindu yogis, Buddhist monks, Christian nuns, of Sufi mystics. The traditions are largely independent, i.e. they are not borrowing concepts from each other. Those reports are consistent with the philosophical concepts of Necessary Being, Being-As-Such, etc. They are consistent with biblical descriptions of God "I am that I am", "...in whom we live and have our being," etc. They match my own apprehension of the ineffable. They are compatible with the uncanny experiences people from all walks of life and throughout history have described. All that is evidence. The list goes on and the cumulative effect to my mind is very compelling. YMMV, obviously. If you can look at all these things and more and explain it all away then you've done your homework. Now let's go get a Belgium ale at Hopleaf. But if people are going to do the "I just don't believe and its' your job to convince me" routine then I consider them lazy and incurious. They can go drink their Miller Lites alone.

[Nonpareil]

I am saying that the existence of God is most plausible explanation for the most fundamental questions of human existence.

You keep saying this.

You also keep failing to establish that it is actually true, or even coherent.

[Neo-Scholastic]

See that's what I'm talking about. Y'all  have either no alternative explanations (duh...i donno) or appeal to brute facts ('cause it does dats why.)

But that's the whole point. It's not necessary to jump to the contrapositive in order not to accept an assertion. In fact, without justification it's downright irrational.

If you say you don't believe that Richie did the murder, is that saying you believe Eddie did it?

No. It's saying that a murder was committed and it deserves an investigation, not an 'I donno'.

---

I am saying that the existence of God is most plausible explanation for the most fundamental questions of human existence.

You keep saying this.

You also keep failing to establish that it is actually true, or even coherent.

Then you aren't listening. And if you're not listening then there is no point explaining. You're not on my ignore list, but based on your comments I'm generally choosing not to respond to you specifically.

[Edwardo Piet]

See that's what I'm talking about. Y'all  have either no alternative explanations (duh...i donno) or appeal to brute facts ('cause it does dats why.)

Hey retard. Asking me to explain the cause of causality is retarded.

Like I said, you may as well ask me what existed "before" time.

Next you'll be asking me what's "outside of space".

Can I have a non-retarded question please?

---

If you say you don't believe that Richie did the murder, is that saying you believe Eddie did it?

Yes because he's the drunken one with the frying pan.

Oh wait it turns out Dick Head the barman did it. I take your point.

[Nonpareil]

You keep saying this.

You also keep failing to establish that it is actually true, or even coherent.

Then you aren't listening. And if you're not listening then there is no point explaining.

Oh, no. I'm very definitely listening.

It's just that all I'm hearing is assertion after assertion, across a dozen different threads, that God must exist for rationality to work, or that he's the best explanation for the universe's existence, or a dozen other things. Not once have you actually justified any of these, or even made anything approaching a substantial attempt to. You have, instead, asked questions like "how does causality work without God?", which are utterly incoherent and fail to justify your position.

You can ignore me if you like, but until you actually start justifying yourself, I'm going to keep pointing out your posts for what they are.

Bare assertion, and nothing more.

[Edwardo Piet]

Incoherent indeed.