God: Proofs of non-existence and existence.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Nice piece of circumnavigation Kyu. Christopher Columbus would've been proud.

You can't answer my point so you make up your own. Easier to argue with cliches isn't it.

Not in the slightest ... the fact is that you are unable to supply evidence (or even a convincing reason for it to be) to support the claimed existence of your god so (the real cliché) you are forced to resort to hiding your god in places that cannot be investigated. That I (or anyone else) can call you on that is simple objectivity, that you keep dodging the question simply highly (as always in this forum) you utter disingenuity.

I repeat, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Kyu

[WWLD]

Let's go through the proofs for and against the existence of god. Both sides are filled with invalid ones so let us find the ones that work and those that don't. The base for the argument should be logical. Yes, I am aware this gives believers a bad start but it is the only thing that makes sense in a philosophical discussion. Rhetoric is obviously allowed but frowned upon.

Let's get the topic started by a proof used for the existence of god. Please note the difference between the proof and my opinion.

The argument sounds:
1. I have an idea of a perfect being (God)
2. In every cause there must be at least as much reality as there is in the effect
3. I am imperfect
4. Given that I am imperfect (3) I cannot be responsible for the idea of perfection that I hold (1)
5. Therefore, given that every cause must be at least as great as its effect (2), whatever caused my idea of perfection (1) must be perfect. Therefore a perfect being exists and this is God who created me.

This proof was presented by Rene Descartes. Opinions?

Welcome to the forums

But I fail to see how you can call this proof

[fr0d0]

Nice piece of circumnavigation Kyu. Christopher Columbus would've been proud.

You can't answer my point so you make up your own. Easier to argue with cliches isn't it.

Not in the slightest ... the fact is that you are unable to supply evidence (or even a convincing reason for it to be) to support the claimed existence of your god so (the real cliché) you are forced to resort to hiding your god in places that cannot be investigated. That I (or anyone else) can call you on that is simple objectivity, that you keep dodging the question simply highly (as always in this forum) you utter disingenuity.

I repeat, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Kyu

I'm just starting to laugh at this now. I love you Kyu. Will you have my babies?

[athoughtfulman]

You show me how it isn't different and I'll consider it.

No, since you're the one claiming it's different, you're the one who needs to show it's different. It is certainly not by default "different"; there must be a reason why it is so.

Meantime... why do you insist something that doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof? No no, it's fine.. of course - you're logic is solid.

No you're completely missing the point. You've said it yourself - Christianity doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof. So if we agree on that point, tell me why it is any different from anything else that isn't in the realm of discernible proof. Take santa claus, there is no evidence of the existence of santa claus in the realm of discernible proof, so why is Christianity any different from santa claus? Or Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, etc. There are countless examples of things that do not exist in the realm of discernible proof, so what sets your religion apart from the rest?

However I feel that it's completely futile to ask you this, since you have shown yourself completely incapable of directly answering any questions which undermine your faith (don't worry, my evidence of this exists in the realm of discernible proof).

---

I'm just starting to laugh at this now. I love you Kyu. Will you have my babies?

Oh and have you ever noticed that people start cracking jokes when they can't directly answer a question? It seems to happen when someone is cornered.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm just starting to laugh at this now. I love you Kyu. Will you have my babies?

Yet another dodge ... you really are quite skilled at being disingenuous aren't you?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

You show me how it isn't different and I'll consider it.

No, since you're the one claiming it's different, you're the one who needs to show it's different. It is certainly not by default "different"; there must be a reason why it is so.

Why do I need to show it's different? You've just made that claim - I didn't. I don't know if it's true. Do you not think it needs unique reasoning then?

Meantime... why do you insist something that doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof? No no, it's fine.. of course - you're logic is solid.

No you're completely missing the point. You've said it yourself - Christianity doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof. So if we agree on that point, tell me why it is any different from anything else that isn't in the realm of discernible proof. Take santa claus, there is no evidence of the existence of santa claus in the realm of discernible proof, so why is Christianity any different from santa claus? Or Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, etc. There are countless examples of things that do not exist in the realm of discernible proof, so what sets your religion apart from the rest?

You haven't said why your statement doesn't follow the fallacy.

Your comparisons are childish and inconsequential. We reason to take certain actions in our lives. Why we don't take illogical decisions and ignore our own reasoning I couldn't understand.

However I feel that it's completely futile to ask you this, since you have shown yourself completely incapable of directly answering any questions which undermine your faith (don't worry, my evidence of this exists in the realm of discernible proof).

LOL. You don't understand so of course you have to resort to ridicule. I completely let you be what you want to be without ridicule. I let you have that freedom. You don't present me the same freedom. I must be crazy because you don't think what I do. Do you not see something worrying about the position?

---

I'm just starting to laugh at this now. I love you Kyu. Will you have my babies?

Oh and have you ever noticed that people start cracking jokes when they can't directly answer a question? It seems to happen when someone is cornered.

Kyu makes no point.. what am I to do in the face of infinite quotation of the same lines? Give me a serious point and I'll try my best to answer, no problem.

[athoughtfulman]

You show me how it isn't different and I'll consider it.

No, since you're the one claiming it's different, you're the one who needs to show it's different. It is certainly not by default "different"; there must be a reason why it is so.

Why do I need to show it's different? You've just made that claim - I didn't. I don't know if it's true. Do you not think it needs unique reasoning then?

You don't know if it's true? So is Christianity a belief simply as the result of Pascal's Wager? I believe that anything that lacks discernible proof is for practical purposes non-existent. Give me one good reason why one claim should stand above the rest? Or are you asserting that you simply believe that Christianity is different? If so, then I think we will have to agree to disagree, for we're arguing on different planes.

Meantime... why do you insist something that doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof? No no, it's fine.. of course - you're logic is solid.

No you're completely missing the point. You've said it yourself - Christianity doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof. So if we agree on that point, tell me why it is any different from anything else that isn't in the realm of discernible proof. Take santa claus, there is no evidence of the existence of santa claus in the realm of discernible proof, so why is Christianity any different from santa claus? Or Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc, etc. There are countless examples of things that do not exist in the realm of discernible proof, so what sets your religion apart from the rest?

You haven't said why your statement doesn't follow the fallacy.

Your comparisons are childish and inconsequential. We reason to take certain actions in our lives. Why we don't take illogical decisions and ignore our own reasoning I couldn't understand.

Simple question - why take Christianity over other millions of unsubstantiated claims?

However I feel that it's completely futile to ask you this, since you have shown yourself completely incapable of directly answering any questions which undermine your faith (don't worry, my evidence of this exists in the realm of discernible proof).

LOL. You don't understand so of course you have to resort to ridicule. I completely let you be what you want to be without ridicule. I let you have that freedom. You don't present me the same freedom. I must be crazy because you don't think what I do. Do you not see something worrying about the position?

You jokes and the use of the dog walking in circles is enough to equal the supposed "ridicule" of other forum members.

I'm just starting to laugh at this now. I love you Kyu. Will you have my babies?

Oh and have you ever noticed that people start cracking jokes when they can't directly answer a question? It seems to happen when someone is cornered.

Kyu makes no point.. what am I to do in the face of infinite quotation of the same lines? Give me a serious point and I'll try my best to answer, no problem.

You've had countless questions asked of you and serious points raised yet you fail to give any intelligent answer. It seems to be a habit of yours to avoid any question which you can't answer. You consistently undermine intelligent discussion by turning a debate into a discussion about which point is what. Your tactics, it would seem, are to confuse rather than to educate.

[fr0d0]

You don't know if it's true? So is Christianity a belief simply as the result of Pascal's Wager? I believe that anything that lacks discernible proof is for practical purposes non-existent. Give me one good reason why one claim should stand above the rest? Or are you asserting that you simply believe that Christianity is different? If so, then I think we will have to agree to disagree, for we're arguing on different planes.

I repeat: you are making the claim, it's you that has to defend it.

[quote='fr0d0' pid='13142' dateline='1238834037']
Simple question - why take Christianity over other millions of unsubstantiated claims?

Christianity isn't about substantiated claims. I thnk I've made my position on that very clear. Do you not?

Removing the crap in your statement... why believe in one faith and not another... because it makes sense to me where the others don't.. not that I then don't consider, reconsider and constantly re-appraise my stance on any position.

You jokes and the use of the dog walking in circles is enough to equal the supposed "ridicule" of other forum members.

I make serious points addressing actual statements keeping to the point in hand. Yes I joke. Some people enjoy that, you don't seem to.

You've had countless questions asked of you and serious points raised yet you fail to give any intelligent answer. It seems to be a habit of yours to avoid any question which you can't answer. You consistently undermine intelligent discussion by turning a debate into a discussion about which point is what. Your tactics, it would seem, are to confuse rather than to educate.

You are calling me unintelligent. Notice that I never call anyone else unintelligent. This is a personal attack and not addressing any point.

You repeat the same question and I keep pointing out to you the fallacy of the reasoning. You have to resort to ridicule rather than consider something outside the strict confines of discernible proof. Open your mind.

[athoughtfulman]

What fallacy?

because it makes sense to me where the others don't.. not that I then don't consider, reconsider and constantly re-appraise my stance on any position.

You've summed up you're entire argument. I don't think there is any point continuing this discussion when your belief is founded on the fact that it "makes sense" to you.

I understand what you mean about it being unsubstantiated. I just wanted you to actually say what you just said. Now we've got that out of the way, I can understand why we don't see the same thing on various issues.

[Tiberius]

Meantime... why do you insist something that doesn't exist in the realm of discernible proof by definition has to be proved in the realm of discernible proof?

There is no evidence for that which you claim nor for any of the millions of other things similarly claimed to exist in the same or similar "realms". The only things that have EVER been reasonably confirmed to exist are those in the natural universe.

In the end it comes down to this very simple concept ... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.