RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
March 21, 2015 at 2:03 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2015 at 2:13 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 21, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Delicate Wrote:(March 21, 2015 at 1:34 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And the fact that the "begins to exist" part was a lazy workaround addition to Kalam to avoid being asked the question "who created god?" doesn't bother you because...?
Was it really a lazy workaround? Do you know that? How do you know, through supernatural revelation? Aren't you just assuming bad faith and poisoning the discussion to start off with? Can you imagine being in a discussion with someone who believed differently, and suddenly they started making up shit and throwing accusations at you?
Once we go this route, we can't discuss the ideas themselves, because we're too busy smearing the people.
And that's too bad because all we end up with is shit on our hands.
Can we assume good faith on both sides of the issue, unless you know something is dishonest for a fact, and can prove it?
Even if it wasn't intentionally meant to be a lazy workaround, that's how it is used.
But the main problem with adding 'begins to exist' to the argument only results in making the argument more fallacious. The argument now affirms the consequent, where before it was only guilty of the fallacies of equivocation, special pleading and composition.
I'm constantly surprised when theists think the addition of 'begins to exist' makes the argument stronger.
So, feel free to add one more fallacy to an already flawed argument.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
