Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Benny_Cake

J C wrote: »

Evidence for God ... eh ... how about the Ultimate Cause, the origin of the Universe, matter, energy, ID in life and indeed the fact that life exists, in the first place?

How about the fact that the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate and science has proven that we are all descended from one man and one woman, the population of the world went through a population bottleneck when only a small number of people survived and the world is covered by sedimentary rock catastrophically and rapidly laid down under water and full of fossilised dead things all over the Earth.
How about the presence of evil, sin, death and disease in a world where living creatures are almost perfect despite the ravages of random mutagenesis and all kinds of other damaging effects.

I could go on ... but I don't want to start another mega thread ... but I'm also not prepared to stand by on a Christian Forum and allow people to make unchallenged fallacious comments that there is no evidence for God ... when the evidence is literally staring them in the face.:)

Mod: As you already know, there is another megathread for these very topics. Take it there.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

Evidence for God ... eh ... how about the Ultimate Cause, the origin of the Universe, matter, energy, ID in life and indeed the fact that life exists, in the first place?

Nope thats circular. This is the same error Festus made before he ran off.

That all these things exist is the QUESTION that "god" is your postulated answer for. So you are simply using the question itself as evidence for the answer. So that does not cut it at all.

That would be like, for example, going into a court of law and attempting to prove the accused is guilty of the murder, by pointing out there was a murder.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope thats circular. This is the same error Festus made before he ran off.

That all these things exist is the QUESTION that "god" is your postulated answer for. So you are simply using the question itself as evidence for the answer. So that does not cut it at all.

I think we have to take all arguments about evidence for the existence of God to the mega thread according to the mods.
If you want we can debate it there.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would be like, for example, going into a court of law and attempting to prove the accused is guilty of the murder, by pointing out there was a murder.

Speaking as somebody with a reasonable knowledge of the criminal justice system, I can tell you that the very first requirement to mount a criminal trial is proof that there was a murder (or other criminal offense), in the first place.
Once that is proven ... you can then proceed to bring charges against an accused.

RikuoAmero

Where is this other mega thread, and why isn't this thread the place to talk about those topics, since they are what is being used to discuss the topic that this thread is named for?
Anyway, I'll list my objections to J C's points, and Mods, if you want to move my response, feel free to. Just leave a link here to that other thread, I don't remember seeing any other threads debating the existence of God other than this one.

"how about the Ultimate Cause"
As I pointed out when I responded to Festus earlier, using this argument makes us use two sets, Caused Items, and Uncaused Items. However, God is the only thing that theists say is uncaused, so the second set might as well be renamed God (since he's the only thing in that set). This then makes the argument become begging the question. Plus, God is just said to be the solution to the problem by arbitrarily sticking the property of "uncaused" on him: this isn't demonstrated nor is it explained.

"the origin of the Universe, matter, energy,"
Rejected because at this moment in time, we do not have strong evidence for *any* hypothesis of an explanation. There are multitudes of proposed explanations, but none of them have gathered the required evidence to support them yet. Christianity is included in that.

"ID in life "
In order to examine ID in life, to be able to study it and measure it, there must, of necessity, be something you don't believe to be ID, so as to compare and contrast. Without being able to show ID, why should I believe anything is ID?

"How about the fact that the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate"
Except for all the times where it hasn't. For one, there is no evidence whatsoever to support that the Hebrews, as an entire race, were ever enslaved in Egypt. Small numbers here and there, that's believable, but the entire race? There is no evidence that Moses as an actual figure existed, yet Jesus (the guy who's supposed to be the all-knowing God, remember?) refers to Moses multiple times as if he existed!

"science has proven that we are all descended from one man and one woman,"
Look up Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam, please. They are NOT the same as the Adam and Eve from Genesis. M. Eve and Y-C Adam lived tens of thousands of years apart.
Science has never said that we are all descended from one man and one woman. What those two individuals are are the most recent male and female ancestors for every human currently alive. There were humans before and after those two specific individuals lived, who had all of their descendants die out.

"the population of the world went through a population bottleneck when only a small number of people survived"
I'd love to know what "scientific" literature you got this from. If only a small number of people had survived, there would have been genetic inbreeding within a few generations that would have ensured the extinction of the human species. Yet here we all here.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

I think we have to take all arguments about evidence for the existence of God to the mega thread according to the mods.

Not what the mods said. This IS the mega thread for debating the existence of god. It is what people have been doing on it for months. It is right there in the Thread Title.

My reading of the Mods mandate above is that your anti evolution agenda arguments belong in that OTHER mega thread dedicated to the subject.

J C wrote: »

Speaking as somebody with a reasonable knowledge of the criminal justice system, I can tell you that the very first requirement to mount a criminal trial is proof that there was a murder (or other criminal offense), in the first place.

Well that point sailed right over your head. You are making my point for me here. You establish there was a murder yes. Then you have established the QUESTION to be asked. Who did it. You do not use the existence of the murder AS evidence that any one particular suspect did it however.

Similarly we exist in this universe and we do not know the explanation for this. Therefore we have established the question. We can put forward hypotheses for this, including the existence of a god. But we do not use the original question AS evidence for any one of those explanations.

So to repeat: The argument you presented is circular and "begging the question".

J C

Benny, could I get a direction on where I can answer RikuoAmero's post?

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not what the mods said. This IS the mega thread for debating the existence of god. It is what people have been doing on it for months. It is right there in the Thread Title.

My reading of the Mods mandate above is that your anti evolution agenda arguments belong in that OTHER mega thread dedicated to the subject.

I gave evidence for God ... which includes evidence for the validity Word of God in the Bible and physical evidence for His actions in the world as well as philosophical and logical arguments such as The Ultimate Cause and Paschals Wager ... none of which touches on the validity of Natural Selection ... which is a fact anyway.

What do you guys want me to do? ... just say 'I believe' (which I do BTW) ... and let you laugh at me and my fellow Christians ... whom you have insultingly accused of lacking logic and evidence for our beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well that point sailed right over your head. You are making my point for me here. You establish there was a murder yes. Then you have established the QUESTION to be asked. Who did it. You do not use the existence of the murder AS evidence that any one particular suspect did it however.

It is a good idea to prove that a murder occurred before you go looking for a murderer ... and in the case of God, all that is needed is to prove His existence is to prove that somebody (of Divine proportions) is required to explain a whole host of phenomena.
... exactly like you need to prove that a murder was committed in order to prove that a murderer exists.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly we exist in this universe and we do not know the explanation for this. Therefore we have established the question. We can put forward hypotheses for this, including the existence of a god. But we do not use the original question AS evidence for any one of those explanations.

If there are no logical or plausible alternatives to God for these phenomena then it is perfectly logical and valid to use this fact as proof for the existence of God ... just like establishing the fact that a murder took place also proves the existence of a murderer in our midst.
Then the only issue is to identify who the murderer is ... and in the case of God ... this would be analogous to establishing who the God is that did it all ... another question altogether ... and probably strictly outside the scope of this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So to repeat: The argument you presented is circular and "begging the question".

My argument is logically based and unassailable ... just like God ensured it would be.

When you think about it, if God exists why wouldn't He place evidence for His existence in the real world in which we live and move and have our being?

I can tell you that He did.

Benny_Cake

Mod: Evolution / creationism thread is here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056402682

This thread is for discussion of atheism and the existence of God. Debate about creationism and so on is restricted to it's own thread, and for good reason.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

I gave evidence for God

No, you did not, and I just explained why. Twice. You begged the question by presenting the item "god" is meant to be an explanation of, as evidence FOR that explanation. That is circular question begging and you well know it.

J C wrote: »

Paschals Wager

And you also know that that is not evidence for anything. It is a mind game to cajole people by fear into believing an unsubstantiated claim. Evidence however, it simply is not.

J C wrote: »

What do you guys want me to do? ... just say 'I believe' (which I do BTW) ... and let you laugh at me and my fellow Christians ... whom you have insultingly accused of lacking logic and evidence for our beliefs.

I call a spade a spade. If you present no evidence I am happy to point this fact out. If you want to be insulted by facts, I can neither help you with that nor pander to it.

J C wrote: »

If there are no logical or plausible alternatives to God

There are many. But even if there was not then you are still on weak ground. You are making the "Argument from exclusivity" fallacy by claiming that there only being one argument somehow increases the credibility OF That argument. It does not. The argument still must be substantiated. And you have not.

J C wrote: »

My argument is logically based and unassailable ... just like God ensured it would be.

Nope. I just assailed it by pointing out it was circular and begging the question. Sorry.

RikuoAmero

Pascal's Wager is a fallacious argument, because it is essentially a scare tactic e.g. You might as well believe in God so as to reap the ultimate reward in the event that he actually does exist.
However, it does nothing to identify which god you should worship, nor does it actually convince you - you're just going through the external motions of prayer and worship, essentially giving that god a second-rate follower. Would your god actually be satisfied with someone going through the motions empty of belief? I think not.

Also saying you have evidence means you must abide by the rules of evidence. If ever your evidence is shown conclusively to be without merit or non-existent then you must discard the hypothesis you say is supported by that evidence. If you continue on believing that hypothesis, then you've exposed yourself as someone not willing to use evidence and reason in his arguments at all. If you do do that, I will stop debating with you, like when I stopped with Festus (because he refused to give his evidence).

"all that is needed is to prove that somebody (of Divine proportions) is required to explain"
False, if by divine proportions you mean a thing that is outside time, is intelligent, has power...in other words, all the grand words typically used to describe God. You have not proven that. You have presupposed it. The cause of the universe (assuming there even was a first cause of course) could have been an elemental particle or something of any sort. You're now committing another logical fallacy, this time of baking your conclusion into your premise.
You've said that ONLY a thing with these properties could have done this action, thus this thing with these properties MUST exist.

"Then the only issue is to identify who the murderer is ... and in the case of God ... this would be analogous to establishing who the God is that did it all."
Running with this analogy, what you're doing is actually more like you seeing a dead body, and immediately jumping to the conclusion that it MUST have been a murder, without doing the work to rule out death due to natural causes or an accident first.

"If there are no logical or plausible alternatives to God for these phenomena that is is perfectly logical and valid to use this fact as proof for the existence of God"
Wrong. Let me guess, you heard the famous quote from Sherlock about "That which remains must be the truth". Well, sorry to say, the fictional character was wrong. Just because there seems to be no other possible explanation for a phenomena doesn't mean that your chosen explanation gets a pass. For one, have you actually done the work of ruling out all other explanations? I highly doubt that.

"My argument is logically based and unassailable"
I can spot someone with a very weak argument when they make grand pronouncements about their arguments like this. YOU don't declare your arguments unassailable. Other people do, once they examine them and if they can find no fault with them. However, I can find fault.

"When you think about it, if God exists why wouldn't He place evidence for His existence in the real world in which we live and move and have our being?"
This just shows that you haven't ruled out any and all other explanations. For one, the possibility of Deism i.e. the hypothesis of a divine being creating the universe and then fecking off to who knows where, never once interacting with this universe.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, you did not, and I just explained why. Twice. You begged the question by presenting the item "god" is meant to be an explanation of, as evidence FOR that explanation. That is circular question begging and you well know it.

I gave evidence for God ... which includes evidence for the validity Word of God in the Bible and physical evidence for His actions in the world as well as philosophical and logical arguments such as The Ultimate Cause and Paschals Wager ... none of which touches on the validity of Natural Selection or Creationism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you also know that that is not evidence for anything. It is a mind game to cajole people by fear into believing an unsubstantiated claim. Evidence however, it simply is not.

... only in the sense that a strangled corpse is a 'mind game' to cajole people into believing a claim that there is a murderer in their midst.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I call a spade a spade. If you present no evidence I am happy to point this fact out. If you want to be insulted by facts, I can neither help you with that nor pander to it.

No you didn't call a spade a spade ... you defended a deliberate inflammatory, derogatory and deeply prejudicial statement by Safehands that people who think logically wouldn't believe in the Old and New Testaments ... with the obvious implication that all Christians therefore lack logic.
... and this on a Christianity Forum.
If it was true that Christians didn't think logically, then fair enough ... but this is a defamatory lie directed against a whole religious community.
Can we please debate this without resorting to unfounded personal abuse ... and crtiique the ideas and not the person or persons who hold the ideas.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There are many. But even if there was not then you are still on weak ground. You are making the "Argument from exclusivity" fallacy by claiming that there only being one argument somehow increases the credibility OF That argument. It does not. The argument still must be substantiated. And you have not.

If there is only one valid argument ... then it logically remains valid unless and until it is invalidated.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope. I just assailed it by pointing out it was circular and begging the question. Sorry.

... without citing any evidence for your baseless assertions.

RikuoAmero

"If there is only one valid argument"

There you go again, making unwarranted assumptions. You haven't satisfactorily demonstrated that your argument is valid. You've just made an argument, not a valid one.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

There you go again, making unwarranted assumptions. You haven't satisfactorily demonstrated that your argument is valid. You've just made an argument, not a valid one.

I've made my arguments ... and nobody has bettered any of them ... plenty of unfounded assertions and prejudicial comments directed against Christians and little else.

RikuoAmero

Really? Then what about when I pointed out that your claim of the bible being proven true historically was false? That cannot be questioned. The bible makes many claims about history, among which is Exodus, for which there is no supporting evidence. No trash left behind by 2 million Jews wandering the desert for 40 years, no explosion of Egyptian gold into neighbouring countries to buy food to offset the famines caused by the ten plagues.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

I gave evidence for God ...

Not really. As I said you begged the question with a circular argument. You also mentioned Pascals wager which is not evidence for anything at all.

If you think Pascals wager is evidence I am all for hearing how and why.

You also appear to think assertion is evidence. You merely asserted the Bible has been verified, when it has not. You appear to like to list things you feel verified, in a long stream, and act like you have offered evidence.

How about you take ONE of your self purported arguments for there being a god at a time, and we will work through them sequentially. Perhaps start with Pascals wager and defending your use of that. Because I am not seeing what it is evidence for at all.

you defended a deliberate inflammatory, derogatory and deeply prejudicial statement by Safehands that people who think logically wouldn't believe in the Old and New Testaments

Quote where I did this please as I am not sure what you are referencing exactly. Post number and paragraph number if you please as I have no recollection of mentioning or discussing the testaments at all.

Can we please debate this without resorting to unfounded personal abuse ... and crtiique the ideas and not the person or persons who hold the ideas.

Again can you please quote me doing these things?

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

My answers in red
Pascal's Wager is a fallacious argument, because it is essentially a scare tactic e.g. You might as well believe in God so as to reap the ultimate reward in the event that he actually does exist.
However, it does nothing to identify which god you should worship, nor does it actually convince you - you're just going through the external motions of prayer and worship, essentially giving that god a second-rate follower. Would your god actually be satisfied with someone going through the motions empty of belief? I think not.
Paschal's Wager is much more than a logical approach to the possibility of eternal life ... it's also a logical approach to this life as well in that you have nothing to lose from living your life in accordance with Christian principles ... and everything to gain ... even if there is nothing when you die ... whereas there could be very serious downsides potentially in not doing so ... both here and now and in the next life, if it turns out that there is one.

Also saying you have evidence means you must abide by the rules of evidence. If ever your evidence is shown conclusively to be without merit or non-existent then you must discard the hypothesis you say is supported by that evidence. If you continue on believing that hypothesis, then you've exposed yourself as someone not willing to use evidence and reason in his arguments at all. If you do do that, I will stop debating with you, like when I stopped with Festus (because he refused to give his evidence).
Lack of evidence for the non-existence of God hasn't stopped Atheists discarding their unfounded hypothesis (that He doesn't exist) ... so could I suggest that you take your own advice, on that one.
Anyway the evidence that I cited for the existence of God hasn't been invalidated ... so you point is moot on that one too.

"all that is needed is to prove that somebody (of Divine proportions) is required to explain"
False, if by divine proportions you mean a thing that is outside time, is intelligent, has power...in other words, all the grand words typically used to describe God. You have not proven that. You have presupposed it. The cause of the universe (assuming there even was a first cause of course) could have been an elemental particle or something of any sort. You're now committing another logical fallacy, this time of baking your conclusion into your premise.
You've said that ONLY a thing with these properties could have done this action, thus this thing with these properties MUST exist.
You can believe that something smaller than a grain of sand gave rise to the Universe in all its magnificence ... but I'll agree to differ with you on that, if you don't mind ... and I'll debate you over on the mega thread, if you want to take it further.
"Then the only issue is to identify who the murderer is ... and in the case of God ... this would be analogous to establishing who the God is that did it all."
Running with this analogy, what you're doing is actually more like you seeing a dead body, and immediately jumping to the conclusion that it MUST have been a murder, without doing the work to rule out death due to natural causes or an accident first.
... my point was that you must first establish that a murder took place to claim the existence of a murderer ... and when you have established that it was murder ... you have also established the existence of a murderer ... ditto with God.

"If there are no logical or plausible alternatives to God for these phenomena that is is perfectly logical and valid to use this fact as proof for the existence of God"
Wrong. Let me guess, you heard the famous quote from Sherlock about "That which remains must be the truth". Well, sorry to say, the fictional character was wrong. Just because there seems to be no other possible explanation for a phenomena doesn't mean that your chosen explanation gets a pass. For one, have you actually done the work of ruling out all other explanations? I highly doubt that.
Sherlock Holmes was correct ... and he is the father of logical deduction.
... so if there is no logical or plausible alternative to God sufficient to explain various phenomena ... then it's elementary, dear Watson, that He exists ... and wants to Save you. The Saving bit isn't necessarily a logical sequitor from this ... but I just threw it in because it happens to be true ... for other logical reasons.
"My argument is logically based and unassailable"
I can spot someone with a very weak argument when they make grand pronouncements about their arguments like this. YOU don't declare your arguments unassailable. Other people do, once they examine them and if they can find no fault with them. However, I can find fault.
Of course you can proclaim your argument to be unassailable when it has proven unassailable ... your opponents will never do this ... why would they do this?, unless they were 'throwing in the towel' on the debate.

"When you think about it, if God exists why wouldn't He place evidence for His existence in the real world in which we live and move and have our being?"
This just shows that you haven't ruled out any and all other explanations. For one, the possibility of Deism i.e. the hypothesis of a divine being creating the universe and then fecking off to who knows where, never once interacting with this universe.
Now you have moved away from the evidence for the existence for God ... to evidence for who God is i.e. the kind of God He is ... which is beyond the scope of this thread ... but it can be taken further over on the mega thread, if you want.

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments and questions ... and for debating the ideas rather than the persons who hold them.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really. As I said you begged the question with a circular argument. You also mentioned Pascals wager which is not evidence for anything at all.

If you think Pascals wager is evidence I am all for hearing how and why.

You also appear to think assertion is evidence. You merely asserted the Bible has been verified, when it has not. You appear to like to list things you feel verified, in a long stream, and act like you have offered evidence.

How about you take ONE of your self purported arguments for there being a god at a time, and we will work through them sequentially. Perhaps start with Pascals wager and defending your use of that. Because I am not seeing what it is evidence for at all.

Paschal's Wager says that it is logical and beneficial to believe in the God of the Bible and live according to Christian principles even if you are not certain that He exists ... and let's face it we're never really certain of anything.
Its a logical reason to believe in God rather than an evidential one ... but it's no less valid for that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Quote where I did this please as I am not sure what you are referencing exactly. Post number and paragraph number if you please as I have no recollection of mentioning or discussing the testaments at all.

You involved yourself in answering a post of mine directed at Safehands ... and got caught in the cross-fire. This was the post by Safehands that I was objecting to.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93271261&postcount=8757

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again can you please quote me doing these things?

It was a general appeal ... not directed at you ... and in fairness, you debate the idea rather than the person.
... and I thank you for that.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

it's no less valid for that.

Except it is totally invalid in the context of this thread. It says nothing about whether there ACTUALLY is a god. At all. Even a little bit. Which is what the thread is about.

J C wrote: »

You involved yourself in answering a post of mine directed at Safehands

You just linked to a post from safehands. Not from me. Where have I "defended a deliberate inflammatory, derogatory and deeply prejudicial statement by Safehands that people who think logically wouldn't believe in the Old and New Testaments ..."

Link to MY post please.

RikuoAmero

Paschal's Wager is much more than a logical approach to the possibility of eternal life ... it's also a logical approach to this life as well in that you have nothing to lose from living your life in accordance with Christian principles ... and everything to gain ... even if there is nothing when you die ... whereas there could be very serious downsides potentially in not doing so ... both here and now and in the next life, if it turns out that there is one.

Again, I have to point out, Pascal's Wager doesn't just point towards the christian god and the christian god only. It can be used for *any* god. All I have to do is replace the word christian with muslim or hindu in your response there, and it is still technically as valid.

Lack of evidence for the non-existence of God

This is only a problem for those atheists who express a belief in the positive statement "There is no God". I am not one of them. I lack a belief in all gods currently espoused throughout human history. This does not mean there definitely isn't a god, or that I believe there definitely isn't a god.
The lack of evidence is for your camp, my good sir.

You can believe that something smaller than a grain of sand gave rise to the Universe in all its magnificence ... but I'll agree to differ with you on that, if you don't mind ... and I'll debate you over on the mega thread, if you want to take it further.

I don't believe it. Where did I say I believed that? I merely proposed it as a possible explanation, one that you haven't ruled out yet.

... my point was that you must first establish that a murder took place to claim the existence of a murderer ... and when you have established that it was murder ... you have also established the existence of a murderer ... ditto with God.

Which you have not done. We find ourselves in this universe. You are jumping the gun by saying it was a creation by a divine agent, an agent that could only have certain properties that just happen to be the properties that the christian god is claimed to have.

Sherlock Holmes was correct ... and he is the father of logical deduction.
... so if there is no logical or plausible alternative to God sufficient to explain various phenomena ... then it's elementary, dear Watson, that He exists ... and wants to Save you.

For one, Sherlock couldn't have been the father of anything, since he's a fictional character (which I pointed out in the part you quote from me). Two, simply restating your point without actually countering my rebuttal to it is..well, pointless.

Of course you can proclaim your argument to be unassailable when it has proven unassailable ... your opponents will never do this ... why would they do this?, unless they were 'throwing in the towel' on the debate.

One person inserting his arguments and declaring himself unassailable is not convincing. I'm sorry, but have you heard of peer review? What you have just done would not fly in scientific circles - a scientist who submits a paper declaring his work unassailable would be laughed out of academia.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is totally invalid in the context of this thread. It says nothing about whether there ACTUALLY is a god. At all. Even a little bit. Which is what the thread is about.

It is a logical reason to believe in the existence of God and behave accordingly ... and is therefore a logical reason not to be an Atheist ... which is the other half of the title of this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You just linked to a post from safehands. Not from me. Where have I "defended a deliberate inflammatory, derogatory and deeply prejudicial statement by Safehands that people who think logically wouldn't believe in the Old and New Testaments ..."

Link to MY post please.

You quoted part of my answer to Safehands inflammatory post ... and I assumed you were defending what he said.

This was the exchange:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
What do you guys want me to do? ... just say 'I believe' (which I do BTW) ... and let you laugh at me and my fellow Christians ... whom you have insultingly accused of lacking logic and evidence for our beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo
I call a spade a spade. If you present no evidence I am happy to point this fact out. If you want to be insulted by facts, I can neither help you with that nor pander to it.

I wasn't insulted by facts as you claimed ... but by Safehands claim that logical people didn't believe in the Old and New Testaments.
However, by accident or by design you associated yourself with Safehands post by challenging part of my answer to it ... while simultaneously not challenging Safehands derogatory post, yourself.

I accept that this was a misunderstanding on both our parts ... and as I have said, I have found that you didn't make any offensive comments yourself - nor did I claim this.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

It is a logical reason to believe in the existence of God

Still nope. It says literally nothing about whether there is one or not. Which is what this thread is about.

J C wrote: »

You quoted part of my answer to Safehands inflammatory post

No. I did not. Again link to where I did this please. Is this request so hard?

The only parts of your posts I quoted, were the posts directed at me. Me. Only me. And no one else by me.

J C wrote: »

I accept that this was a misunderstanding on both our parts ...

What have I misunderstood? All I am seeing is you claiming I said/did something I know for a fact I never said/did.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote:

Again, I have to point out, Pascal's Wager doesn't just point towards the christian god and the christian god only. It can be used for *any* god. All I have to do is replace the word christian with muslim or hindu in your response there, and it is still technically as valid.

It has applications for all gods ... but it is more urgent ... and a much greater wager when applied to the Christian God.

RikuoAmero wrote:

This is only a problem for those atheists who express a belief in the positive statement "There is no God". I am not one of them. I lack a belief in all gods currently espoused throughout human history. This does not mean there definitely isn't a god, or that I believe there definitely isn't a god.
The lack of evidence is for your camp, my good sir.

That is good ... so you're somewhat Agnostic ... rather than Atheistic ... and therefore my add-on point that the evidence that I cited for the existence of God hasn't been invalidated should be of considerable interest to you.

RikuoAmero wrote:

I don't believe it. Where did I say I believed that? I merely proposed it as a possible explanation, one that you haven't ruled out yet.

Some thing we can agree on ... thanks.

RikuoAmero wrote:

Which you have not done. We find ourselves in this universe. You are jumping the gun by saying it was a creation by a divine agent, an agent that could only have certain properties that just happen to be the properties that the christian god is claimed to have.

... its over to the mega thread ... if you wish to pursue this any further.

RikuoAmero wrote:

For one, Sherlock couldn't have been the father of anything, since he's a fictional character (which I pointed out in the part you quote from me). Two, simply restating your point without actually countering my rebuttal to it is..well, pointless.

I didn't restate anybodies point ... I pointed out that because there is no logical or plausible alternative to God sufficient to explain various phenomena ... then it's a logical follow-on, that He exists ... or at the very least, something very like Him exists.

RikuoAmero wrote:

One person inserting his arguments and declaring himself unassailable is not convincing. I'm sorry, but have you heard of peer review? What you have just done would not fly in scientific circles - a scientist who submits a paper declaring his work unassailable would be laughed out of academia.

... not if it was genuinely unassailable.

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Still nope. It says literally nothing about whether there is one or not. Which is what this thread is about.

It is a logical reason to believe in the existence of God and behave accordingly ... and is therefore a logical reason not to be an Atheist ... which is the other half of the title of this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. I did not. Again link to where I did this please. Is this request so hard?

The only parts of your posts I quoted, were the posts directed at me. Me. Only me. And no one else by me.

Quote number 3 from me on this post by you wasn't directed at you (it was directed at Safehands) ... yet you chose to quote it and proceeded to answer it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93284400&postcount=8770

... and now that you are on your 'moral high horse' ... could I ask you to clarify your position on Safehands post, that started all of this, and which I believe to be gratutiously offensive to all Christians.

Safehands wrote: »

An excellent summary of the old and new testaments. Doesn't mean any of it is true, but well done JC. The trouble is, we know all that already. Heard it hundreds of times. It still contains religious cliches which are not going to convince people who think logically.

RikuoAmero

It seems I've become nozzferrahhtoo in the last few minutes. Go figure.

It has applications for all gods ... but it is more urgent ... and a much greater wager when applied to the Christian God.

A statement that I notice you do not expand upon or provide evidence for. You just baldly assert.
So go on. How does P.W. mean more when talking about the christian god instead of say Allah or Vishnu? As the reall nozz pointed out, it only tries to convince you to worship a divine being in hopes of being rewarded by it after death - it in no way validates the claim that that being exists (or that the being will reward worship if it exists: he could be a dick and punish those who worship him). This also ties into your claim about your arguments being unassailable - since I'm able to bring up all sorts of counter-points and rebuttals, this shows you out to be incredibly arrogant and foolish.

evidence that I cited for the existence of God hasn't been invalidated

Hasn't been validated is the more important point.

I didn't restate anybodies point

Yes you did. I countered your claim that if there is no other explanation, then the God claim stands. To which, you responded...by simply repeating yourself, with no counter to my rebuttal.
Also notice the form of your argument. If...then. You need to demonstrate the 'if' part of your claim for the 'then' part to be true.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It seems I've become nozzferrahhtoo in the last few minutes. Go figure.

I've fixed it ... my apologies.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

A statement that I notice you do not expand upon or provide evidence for. You just baldly assert.
So go on. How does P.W. mean more when talking about the christian god instead of say Allah or Vishnu? As the reall nozz pointed out, it only tries to convince you to worship a divine being in hopes of being rewarded by it after death - it in no way validates the claim that that being exists (or that the being will reward worship if it exists: he could be a dick and punish those who worship him). This also ties into your claim about your arguments being unassailable - since I'm able to bring up all sorts of counter-points and rebuttals, this shows you out to be incredibly arrogant and foolish.

I have said that Paschal's Wager is much more than a logical approach to the possibility of eternal life ... it's also a logical approach to this life as well in that you have nothing to lose from living your life in accordance with Christian principles ... and everything to gain ... even if there is nothing when you die ... whereas there could be very serious downsides potentially in not doing so ... both here and now and in the next life, if it turns out that there is one.
... so please tell me how Vishnu, for example, fits into Paschal's Wager?

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes you did. I countered your claim that if there is no other explanation, then the God claim stands. To which, you responded...by simply repeating yourself, with no counter to my rebuttal.
Also notice the form of your argument. If...then. You need to demonstrate the 'if' part of your claim for the 'then' part to be true.

Where did this logical non sequitur occur?

RikuoAmero

in that you have nothing to lose

Yes I do. For one, time. Time is the ultimate non-renewable resource, and time spent praying and worshipping a being one is not convinced exists, but is worshipping simply so as to play the odds, is time wasted.
So going with the christian principles you keep going on about, one example would be going to church every Sunday. That's time wasted as far as I can see, especially if you're doing it for no other reason than to play the odds.
As for Vishnu...simple.
"I have said that Paschal's Wager is much more than a logical approach to the possibility of eternal life ... it's also a logical approach to this life as well in that you have nothing to lose from living your life in accordance with Hindu principles ... and everything to gain ... even if there is nothing when you die ... whereas there could be very serious downsides potentially in not doing so ... both here and now and in the next life, if it turns out that there is one."

I only changed one word in your argument there, and it is still just as valid (which is to say, not at all).
Note that yet again, you are still just making bald assertions. You keep going on about potential downsides and upsides, and have again repeated the bald assertion that it makes sense for christianity alone. I say bald because it's an empty statement. You just say "it's a logical apporach", without examining the logic.
I also note that when you repeated the upsides and downsides mentioned in P.W., you didn't there comment on the possibility I raised of God punishing the worshippers. I really want to see what you say about this, because P.W. literally has no answer for that possibility.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

It is a logical reason to believe in the existence of God and behave accordingly ... and is therefore a logical reason not to be an Atheist ... which is the other half of the title of this thread.
Quote number 3 from me on this post by you wasn't directed at you (it was directed at Safehands) ... yet you chose to quote it and proceeded to answer it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93284400&postcount=8770
... and now that you are on your 'high moral horse' ... could I ask you to clarify your position on Safehands post, that started all of this, and which I believe to be gratutiously offensive to all Christians.

Wow JC, I've never seen you so upset. I'm sorry to have done that to you.

My position is that I just don't think people who convince themselves that the Biblical stories are true, think in a logical way. I don't want to upset you, but that is just my opinion. It is not meant to be in any way inflammatory, but how can a logical person think that Noah lived for 900 years? Or that God talked via a burning bush? Logic tells us that a man can't live that long. Burning bushes don't talk. These are examples of what you have told us you believe. I don't believe in any of those things. They are not examples of a logical reason for anyone to believe in God.

I think you are extremely intelligent by the way and a brilliant debater. I'd love to have a pint with you some day. I just don't agree with you and I don't think you have proved anything about the existence of God, you just think you have.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Wow JC, I've never seen you so upset. I'm sorry to have done that to you.

My position is that I just don't think people who convince themselves that the Biblical stories are true, think in a logical way. I don't want to upset you, but that is just my opinion. It is not meant to be in any way inflammatory, but how can a logical person think that Noah lived for 900 years? Or that God talked via a burning bush? Logic tells us that a man can't live that long. Burning bushes don't talk. These are examples of what you have told us you believe. I don't believe in any of those things. They are not examples of a logical reason for anyone to believe in God.

I think you are extremely intelligent by the way and a brilliant debater. I'd love to have a pint with you some day. I just don't agree with you and I don't think you have proved anything about the existence of God, you just think you have.

I'm not in the least upset ... and my intelligence isn't at issue here, one way or the other.
However, I think it is completely unacceptable to claim that an entire group of people (Christians who believe in the Old and New Testament) aren't logical, as you have done ... and a quick withdrawal of that remark would be good.
All generalizations are false ... and when the generalization is prejudicial it is offensive to the entire group so targeted ... and if it isn't challenged, people will start to believe it to be true and start to behave accordingly towards the affected group.
I'm at a slight disadvantage to you in that you have brought up stuff about Noah, etc, on this thread ... but I cannot reply to it in respect for the Mod ruling that I can only discuss such issues on the mega thread ... so please excuse me for not discussing this aspect of your post any further here.

Safehands wrote: »

Wow JC, I've never seen you so upset. I'm sorry to have done that to you.

Like I've said, I'm not upset and no need to be sorry for me ...
If you want to be sorry, just be sorry for the poor image that such gratuitous unfounded comments directed against Christians and Christianity, project of yourself and any other anti-christians, who support this kind of stuff.

I love you (in a purely Christian way) and I certainly forgive you.

... as for the pint ... you're in the queue ... after Robin ... and perhaps even Mr P.!!:)

You're obviously a very intelligent man yourself ... but you don't have a monopoly on either logic or intelligence.
I have found as I go through life, just how much there is to know about everything ... and I have yet to meet somebody that I didn't learn something from.

God Bless and good night.
J C

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

It is a logical reason to believe in the existence of God

Still no. It is not evidence that there is a god. It just is not and you are not giving me a reason why it is.

J C wrote: »

Quote number 3 from me on this post by you wasn't directed at you

Yes it was. I replied to post 8768. The entire post was directed at me.

So you have claimed I quoted something I didnt, supported something I didnt, and said things I didnt. Nice. How "Christian".

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
It is a logical reason to believe in the existence of God

nozzferrahhtoo
Still no. It is not evidence that there is a god. It just is not and you are not giving me a reason why it is.

I never claimed that it was evidence ... just that it is a logical reason to believe in God.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Quote number 3 from me on this post by you wasn't directed at you

nozzferrahhtoo
Yes it was. I replied to post 8768. The entire post was directed at me.

So you have claimed I quoted something I didnt, supported something I didnt, and said things I didnt. Nice. How "Christian".

The following was the exchange:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
What do you guys want me to do? ... just say 'I believe' (which I do BTW) ... and let you laugh at me and my fellow Christians ... whom you have insultingly accused of lacking logic and evidence for our beliefs.

nozzferrahhtoo
I call a spade a spade. If you present no evidence I am happy to point this fact out. If you want to be insulted by facts, I can neither help you with that nor pander to it.

My post was primarily directed at Safehands ... but also anybody else who supported what he said by their silence (which you appeared to be doing at the time).
... and I note in this regard that you haven't clarified your position on Safehands post, that started all of this, and which I believe to be gratuitously offensive to all Christians.

... and by not doing so, you are effectively supporting it ... and therefore my reply to you turns out to be totally correct after all ... and by your silence you are now defending a deeply prejudicial statement by Safehands that people who think logically wouldn't believe in the Old and New Testaments ... with the obvious implication that all Christians therefore lack logic ... which was the charge I made in the post that you are objecting to.