|
Good short and simple argument against God
|
 (July 23, 2012 at 7:44 am)GodlessGirl pid'314345 Wrote:Imagine a world where God did not exist but people just really wanted to believe for whatever various reasons. Now try to find the difference between the world you just imagined and our world. Such a scenario proves exactly nothing. Quote:There is a simple answer for everything,and it's wrong (Ambrose Bierce)  (July 31, 2012 at 5:34 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other: Yet in both cases remains totally undetectable; as such, even if it were to exist, the Universe still plays out exactly as would be expected if it didn't.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 (July 31, 2012 at 5:34 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other: 1) There's no demonstrable evidence or reasoned argument to support this assertion. 2) The Ontological argument? Really? 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.  (July 23, 2012 at 7:44 am)GodlessGirl Wrote: Imagine a world where God did not exist but people just really wanted to believe for whatever various reasons. Now try to find the difference between the world you just imagined and our world. Well you've just described the different viewpoints of theist and atheist same world, different worldview. RE: Good short and simple argument against God
August 1, 2012 at 1:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2012 at 1:34 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Oh I don't know about that...their world is filled with ghosts and magic -literally bursting with them- two things which are mysteriously absent from my own.
More often than not it doesn't even seem that we're attempting to explain the same things anymore, as those things which they have explanations for are things which I have never experienced, and to my knowledge, things which no one has any actual experience of whatsoever....
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
 RE: Good short and simple argument against God
August 2, 2012 at 10:13 pm
(This post was last modified: August 2, 2012 at 10:15 pm by CliveStaples.)
(July 31, 2012 at 11:39 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(July 31, 2012 at 5:34 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other: Oh, was there a "detectability" requirement? And what does the standard of "detectability" require--i.e., when precisely is something "detectable" and when does it fail to be "detectable"? (August 1, 2012 at 12:28 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(July 31, 2012 at 5:34 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Here's a couple responses, not necessarily consistent with each other: 1) I didn't say that there was. I was only outlining different responses that could be made; I wasn't making those responses myself, or providing the reasoning made to mount an effective argument for them. 2) You could think of it that way, I suppose. The Ontological argument isn't the only way to argue that God 'necessarily' exists. “The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
To quote the Texan Tank, AronRa (from memory, so the wording will be off even if the meaning will remain): when god intervenes in our world, it ought to pull its hand out dripping with physics. In other words, whatever interacts physically with our Universe and our reality must leave some trace of its interaction. Whether we have the capability right now to detect this evidence is irrelevant. The fact remains that the Universe plays out exactly as it would be expected to as though there were no gods active in it. Now why should that be?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
