A "meta-argument" against all future arguments for God's existence ?

[Ferrocyanide]

[Deesse23]

Look. I understand that you do not like what Russia is doing, you do not agree with their actions.
I’m not here to defend what Russia is doing.

Yes you are, just scroll back at your previous posts. Seriously.

I am just telling you that what is happening is predictable.
The politicians in the EU and in the USA are not dummies. They know very well Russia. Yet, the EU and USA goes ahead with their decisions.
So, what exactly did they do to incite Russia to send a large army into Ukraine 1 month ago?

What do you think, someone else did do to incite an russian invasion of Ukraine.
Please pay attention: Russia chose the tool to use in this situation, nobody else. What happened that left Russia no choice but to invade Ukraine?

[quote='Ferrocyanide' pid='2095480' dateline='1648390264']
You seem to be saying that Ukraine should join NATO and the USA should have military bases there.
[quote]
I didnt say that, please stop....too late (see below)
No i am saying what i say. I dont need you to tell me what i say. What a fucking surprise, isnt it?
No i am saying you are apologizing invasions, like in the quote above where you claimed someone "incited" Russia to invade Ukraine.


[quote='Ferrocyanide' pid='2095480' dateline='1648390264']
[quote]
Not the same but an equivocation. A real bad one at that, since you need to demonstrate that Ukraine is not acting on her own behalf)

No, that is irrelevant.
The important component here is that there are 2 large mutual enemies: USA and Russia.
The USA continues to view Russia as problematic, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia responds.
The USA wants to setup military bases everywhere in the world and you think Russia, China are not noticing that?

Equivocations are hardly irrelevant when you are justifying invasions with them.
What the fuck is this deflection with China and military bases about? That is irrelevant to Russias invasion of Ukraine. Look at yourself, you are trying to justify this invasion by pointing to whatever the US does. I´ll repeat: whatever the US does (right or wrong, duh) does.not.justify an invasion of Ukraine by Russia. How hard is this to understand? Have you never read about whataboutism or what?

More, very bad ones, equivocations.

I was only documenting about some of the political games that these nations are playing.

Yeah, just like Anomalocaris you are asked to condemn an action unconditionally worth of condemnation, and your reply is centerd around whataboutism and "thats the way things are". I am not asking you what the US does, i am not asking you how things are, i am not stupid, i know how things are, i dont need someone like you explaining to me how things are. I probably know much better than you how things are. Are we finished now with how things are? Can we fucking go back on topic now, pretty please?

Should Russia be held accountable for its invasion of Ukraine? Do you think the russian invasion of Ukraine was justified? Do you think any invasion of an independent and free nation is justified, under any circumstance
Please pay attention: Your answer should not revolve around the US (or any other state) and its actions, since all of this is irrelevant to the general evaluation of an independent nation by another nation.

For example, I said that Russia wants to explore the upper regions of Canada where you have some random small islands.
If you were the canadian government, what would you do?

Utterly irrelevant
But ill bite: Invade Russia, because someone like you would go to a forum and defend my invasion by telling everyone that this "is how things are"?

Like I said previously, I am not trying to defend what Russia is doing.
What I am saying is very simple:
The USA takes action X.
Russia responds.
The USA responds.
and on and on it goes.

Yes you are trying to defend what Russia is doing, by using equivocations. And when i told you, you doubled down by making more abstract equivocations. Right here, right now.
And now your equivocations are becoming even more abstract, and thus absurd.
US does something, Russia does something, thus invasions are ok.  
Or were you trying to explain to me again "how things are". In that case sorry, I wasnt ware that "US doing stuff triggers Russia doing stuff". Thanks for explaining the world to (silly) me.  

Do you want that to continue?
If you were the government of the USA, what decisions would you take? Would you go ahead and have Ukraine join NATO and would you setup military bases over there?

Why do you have to deny and deflect? Why do you have to keep asking questions in return to a simple question any decent person would be able to answer in a split second?: Was the invasion of Ukraine by Russia justified?

Thats what russian government controlled media are spewing, propaganda. Got some facts to support this?

In order to have such facts, you would have to discuss the situation with the people over there or you have to be living over there.
In the case of Ukraine, I do not truly know but I think it makes sense.

You dont have facts. ok
What you have (thanks for admitting) is "it makes sense". So russian state propaganda is "making sense to you". Well, good for you, i guess?

Since you know you have nothing you felt compelled to add that noone else can have possibly facts.  
This is literally like claiming that Atheism is just another religion. Its a (not so) silent admission you have nothing.

It sounds like you are saying there is no anti-russian sentiment over there

Where did i say that!!!???
Right, nowhere. So stop lying and suggesting that i did.  

Me not buying russian state propaganda because "it makes sense", does not make me claim the opposite. You know the routine. You make claims, you provide evicence.

and you require me to provide evidence.
I’m sorry, but I cannot satisfy your request

So you do know that routine, fine!
Then fucking stop lying and suggesting i am making unsupported claims like you.

But lets put your dishonesty and deflection aside. Ill grant you now that there are "anti russian sentiments" in the eastern parts of Ukraine. Does that justify an invasion of Ukraine by Russia?  

but maybe you can contact a large number of ukrainians and have discussions with them and watch some ukrainian channels.

I am not talking to random Ukrainians nor do i wish to. I am unfortunately stuck talking to someone like you: An apologist for breach of international law and supporter of invasions.
Those Ukrainians didnt come here, made unsupported assertions because these "made sense" to them, and they didnt lie about what i said.

I’m not here to defend what Russia is doing.
I am just telling you that what is happening is predictable.

Oh yeah, the old "im just saying how it is", in order to avoid having to tell if you think what "is" is justifyable.
Thank you Captain Obvious. Without you telling me dictators not giving a shit about international law, i wouldnt be able to tie my shoelaces.
Do you happen to know what 2+2 is? I am pondering this for all of my life. Would be great if someone like you would be able to communicate this to an idiot like me.

I am also going to copy my previous line since you did not respond to it:
What is happening in Ukraine right now is a perfect moment to show how the USA can protect anyone.
What is stopping the USA? A piece of paper was not signed?

Why dont you ask Joe Biden?

[R00tKiT]

There isn’t anything about hell in judaism. 

Why do you bring up Judaism? Neither of us is a Jew so what's the point? 

Anyway, your point above is extremely important: the absence of hell, or any form of punishment in end times, is enough to show Judaism is not tenable as a religious belief. If there is no hell, then evidently the dramatic injustice in this life will never be redressed. It's extremely difficult to reconcile this with the existence of a just and caring deity.

I should be clear here: the problem with being a jew is not just that the belief one endorses doesn't satisfy the requirements of evidentialism. It's internally inconsistent, as false and meaningless as a married bachelor.

Christianity is a merger religion. It fuses judaism, greek religion, roman religion, babylonian, mythraism and perhaps more.
It is said that the idea of hell is mostly inspired by the greek religion.
It is possible that those ideas have influenced rabbis from other sects.

All this is not a threat to theism, as we acknowledge free will and that free agents can corrupt the divine message. Islam says that the first man was a prophet (Adam), therefore the remnants of the first prophet might have influenced all the ancient religions. 

As you can see, the plurality of religions and even their evolution can easily be reconciled with the Islamic faith: an initial divine message is passed on across numerous generations of religious communities, each generation has its own struggles, political motivations and caprices of human beings, it's inevitable that the initial message will serve as an instrument to attain worldly ambitions, but this is not a good reason to reject the existence of the initial message. 

But why is your only solution to throw people into a lake with element 16? What would that accomplish?

You're repeating yourself: the doctrine of hell is not my solution. It's simply what's in scripture, that's why all(most?) theists believe in it. The real question is whether you should accept scripture at face value.

You ask " What would that accomplish?" which is a meaningless question,  punishment in end times obviously doesn't have any educational purpose, it's too late -according to orthodox belief- to educate someone who ignored the divine signs once they die, they only reap what they sow. A tragic outcome that shows how serious the question of religious belief is.

I think that it is important that I say this again:
Just because a guy has a sticker on his jacket that says “Hello, I am a god.” doesn’t mean that he is exactly who you think he is. It doesn’t mean that you should abandon your reasoning, your morals and just blindly follow him.

Also, I have a question for you. If this jewish god made me a god, would you be ok with whatever I decide?

This kind of argument pops up often from theist. This idea that the jewish god is perfect therefore, we should not question his decision to torture people forever in hell.
We aren’t talking about rocket science, as the old saying goes.

You're asking the wrong questions here. You either believe in the God of classical theism or you don't. If you don't, it's futile to complain about the details of some religious doctrine, such as the afterlife.

If you do, then you have a formidable argument for the existence of the afterlife:

(1) God created finite persons to exist in fellowship with himself.
(2) It would contradict His purpose to allow them to perish completely when his purpose for them remains unfulfilled.

(3) Therefore, it's reasonable to believe in life after death.

The argument is valid and sound in so far as you accept God's existence.

You asked:
Do you think God can't proved by empirical science?
I don’t know what your abilities are. What experiment are you planing on doing?

Nice dodge.

Let me be more straightforward: do you agree with the following statement "For any assertion P, P is true if and only if there exists an experiment confirming that P is true" ? (Y/N)

and the following statement : "For any assertion P, P is true if and only if P is empirically falsifiable" ? (Y/N)

Do you think that Muhammad was faking prophecy?
I think that Mohamed lived in the region and I think christianity was spreading so, he had heard about that religion from either someone in his community as he was growing up or he was already at the adult stage.

I didn't ask you about the alleged sources of the Qur'an. I asked what do you think, you, of the Islamic prophet PBUH. Did he lie about his prophethood? Did he mistakenly think he communicated with the supernatural ?

You believe in the jewish god and you believe that this god’s brain works correctly and that he designed your brain to work correctly.
Great. So, how do you know that the jewish god’s brain is working correctly?

Respectfully, that's a silly question. There is no reason to think that a mind is impossible without a brain, no one ever devised a successful argument establishing that. The fact that you think that a mind existing anywhere requires a physical brain is due to your lack of imagination, no good reason to think so.

You're not alone in this mistake, we can find articles of very abled philosophers arguing against theism on the basis of God being disembodied.

That’s correct. I am not making an argument. I am just making an observation.
You are making looking at the same thing and your claim is that god is moral.

Stopping crime does not interfere with free will. If god is omniscient, then he already knows the future.
If you are claiming he is not omniscient, then he can make a duplicate world where people are zombies (or if you like, we can call them simulations) and the only real person is that person in question.
So, any person he kills, tortures, burns wold not have real consequences.

God stopping any human action intereferes with free will, by definition. Again, if you have a serious argument establishing that the two statements:

(1) God exists and is all-powerful+benevolent.
(2) Evil exists.

are contradictory, then you can send your article to any peer reviewed jounal in the philosophy of religion and you'll instantly become the most acclaimed philosopher of all time, we finally have a knock-down argument against theism!

Unfortunately, it's not just that no such argument has ever been presented, knock-down arguments don't exist in philosophy anyway, it was even showed (in the free will defense) that the two statements are compatible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anyway, your point above is extremely important: the absence of hell, or any form of punishment in end times, is enough to show Judaism is not tenable as a religious belief. If there is no hell, then evidently the dramatic injustice in this life will never be redressed. 

Have you ever considered how narrow a view of religious belief that entails? How narrow a view of god that entails?

Think about what you've said. In your opinion, a god without a torture chamber can't be believed in. There's just no other way god could effect justice.

He's as dumb and bloodthirsty as any human savage, huh? Must be. Just not believable otherwise. Good luck when you see him. For your sake, let's hope he doesn't actually run a pain pron dungeon filled with people who talk shit.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Anyway, your point above is extremely important: the absence of hell, or any form of punishment in end times, is enough to show Judaism is not tenable as a religious belief. If there is no hell, then evidently the dramatic injustice in this life will never be redressed. 

Have you ever considered how narrow a view of religious belief that entails?  How narrow a view of god that entails?

Think about what you've said.  In your opinion, a god without a torture chamber can't be believed in.  There's just no other way god could effect justice.  

He's as dumb and bloodthirsty as any human savage, huh?  Must be.  Just not believable otherwise.  Good luck when you see him.  For your sake, let's hope he doesn't actually run a pain pron dungeon filled with people who talk shit.

No no god must be a cruel monster who tortures people forever .....(sarcasm)

[The Grand Nudger]

He must be, because Kloro can't imagine or understand anything else. He kindof works for kloro, stuck doing only what kloros spider brain can conceive of.