Dualism

[fr0d0]

Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

It is indeed laughable, I fully agree, but hey, I am not a theologian thinker. The boys from the frontal lobe department down at th churches should be sacked right away! Since I have named three (former) leadng figures of the theologian brand here I guess you are gonna give me names of at least four leading theologians who deny the claim on the existence of god.

Playing with words again. It's laughable for YOU to suggest this is people believing there's proof. People's beliefs themselves are not in question here.
You have named 3 non examples... you need to go away and find an ACTUAL example.
Why should I have to go away and find anything? I have made no claims. I said it was a personal stance that I've yet to find fault with. Did you miss that bit?

Let's have a look how the argument went so far.

First you demanded justification for my claim that theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god. You did that here:

PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.
There's a claim. substantiate please.

Then I give you three examples of two dead theologians and one contemporary theologian (Anselm, Aquinas and Swinburne). I do that here:

Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.

Then you discard my examples on the ground that the proofs of these men are invalid. You do that here:

The ontological argument is that because we can imagine a God he must exist. Yeah right - Is that the best you can offer for people believing they have proof? I think you need to go find some evidence - this is laughable.

Of course this is a rather vitreous diversion tactic, a wordgame played in the hope no-one notices that you have changed the rules while playing the game. It is not relevant at all if these so called proofs are valid or not, what counts is that these theologians claimed them to be valid.

To summarize:
P1 - these men were/are theologians.
P2 - these theologians claimed proof for the existence of god.
C1 - Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.

From P1 and P2 it follows that theologians through the ages have claimed proof for the existence of god. If you do not agree with this please make clear what's wrong about P1 or P2 or how the premisses not necessarily lead to the conclusion, for you have done none of that so far.

From C1 it follows that through the ages theologians do not share your key assumption that belief does not require proof. The rest of your talk is blabla to divert attention from this key point.

Please sanatize your argumentation. I believe that you can do better than you have done so far.

What a moronic argument. Let me explain to to why that is so.

Your substantiation that Christians have believed in God on grounds of proof is that they believe using the logic "because we can think it exists then it does". THIS IS NOT PROOF. THEY HAVE NO PROOF. There is no evidence that theologians through the ages have believed in God with proof. Your arguments beggars belief. Please come into the real world.

You're completely playing with words to justify your statement. If we accept proof that is contrary to our understanding then sure, we could justify just about anything. I am not talking philosophical proofs... these are hypothetical at best. I'm talking proof that's valid scientifically. Because some jerk of a philosopher says if he can think of the earth as flat then it is, is pure jibberish.

This is pure wordplay on your part. You have no valid points to make, you're 100% pedant & no trousers.

---

I have never before come across the claim that philosophical stances need no jutification in debate.

I didn't say my stance needed no justification. I said belief in God necessarily requires no proof. It's quite simple. And a common concept I think. A very quick google got me this: http://www.trinitychickasha.org/articles/1020f.html
Knock yourself out.

Well it took about two seconds to pinpoint the faulty reasoning in the article you provided in the link. The article deals with the rebuttal of a strong moral claim (“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”), not with the technical rules for rational argument that require justification for expressed truth claims offered as part of that rational argument. Many theologians sought rational argument and accepted that this implies a burden of proof. The belief as such does not require justification as I stipulated earlier, rational argument about it does.

So you swing wildly in the opposite direction when it suits you. Now we're back to proper debating with "following technical rules'. Pure pedantry again. Many theologian may have tried to find proof by whatever means. None did so. Yours is the positive claim. I believe the point goes that it is you that must support your claim.
Like I said... I've merely pointed out an idea. It seems to be common to all major religions. You have yet to find one valid argument against it. Proof = scientifically valid proof. Proof = anything that would establish beyond logic that there was no reason for faith.
If religions require faith then they have no proof. No logical reason to believe without faith. Show me this isn't true where the religion requires faith.

ludicrousy (#@# is that how it is spelled??)

I made a new word. Hope you didn't mind. Pedant! :p

Well, I think you are fighting some personal windmills here. I am not a native english speaker and I could not decide on the right spelling of the word ludicrousy, and expressed my frustration about it between brackets. That's all. No reason for ad hominem.

I used the word in the preceeding post. It doesn't exist. No need to be so anal.

---

It's not my argument

You're the one who said, "We cannot prove God does not exist" you moron ... of course it's your fucking argument.

Kyu

Oops! Personal insult :p

You mean you think my statement was moronic perhaps?

---

I asked you to name one uniquely biblical 'truth' that has ever helped to (among other things) abolish slavery. For this purpose it is not enough to name anti-slavery christian thinkers. You will have to show that the anti-slavery idea was a uniquely christian idea. The idea that slave trade is immoral however is not uniquely christian. Humanistic thinkers and other non-christian thinkers condemned slavery long before the religious abolitioners movement gained substantial support. Against your claim there is also ample evidence of condonement of slavery in the OT and a strong case can be made that christianity has been a supporting force in the slave trade. I do not deny that there have been christian anti-slavery thinkers. I do deny that the sole source of this idea is biblical. There is ample evidence that it is not a uniquely biblical moral stance and that in various reliogions and cultures the idea has emerged. Christianity cannot claim to have invented it and humbleness on this point is advised since christianity played a dubious role in the rise of the slave trade.

And I answered that biblical truth isn't scientific truth. Religious truth sets the parameters for people to live fulfilled lives. The biblical principle is what moulds our social structure. You seek to attribute things that are against biblical truth to biblical truth. A logical nonsense. Religious truths. no matter what the source (as you pathetically try to dismiss them on exact lineage) hold true. Christianity in particular is in essence an anti slavery religion. That's what it was born out of. That's the thrust of it's ethos. You can misinterpret to your hearts desire, the facts simply don't support that.
I never said that the sole idea of anti slavery is Christian. A personal windmill of yours? Wilberforce was simply a prominent mover, who also had Christian motives..