- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by no1marauder1, 2 and 3 are premises. Feel free to attack the factual truth of the premises if you can; that is one way to show that a logical argument is weak.
1, 2 and 3 are premises. Feel free to attack the factual truth of the premises if you can; that is one way to show that a logical argument is weak.
A, B, and C are conclusions from the premises. To show they are not strong or acceptable conclusions, you must either A) Show that the premises are incorrect; or B) Show that the conclusions do not ...[text shortened]... u give him to show that if he cannot logically have these attributes and still have evil exist.
1. If God is all-good, He would not have wished for evil to exist;[/i]
2. If God is all-powerful, He could have assured that evil didn't exist;
3. Evil exists;
For arguments sake, all these three premises assume the existence of God. But they also evoke a moral law. As the existence of God is assumed for arguments sake, then for arguments sake God would also have to be the moral lawgiver. But you are trying to disprove a moral lawgiver and not prove one. Therefore your premises are all self defeating.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf God did not exist, you would not need to deny his existence.
Oh, so they are going to disappear in a cloud of blue smoke once god is systematically disproven?
And, btw, you cannot make an absolute negation if you do not have absolute knowledge.
If you say that God does not exist, you claim to have absolute knowledge.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe simply don't know if God exists or not.
Poppycock. Suppose, for a second, that God really doesn't exist. Does this mean I'm going to vanish in a puff of smoke? We simply don't know if God exists or not, so that statement is at least 50% guarenteed to be false.
So you take pride in your ignorance?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWrong again!!!! Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?
If God did not exist, you would not need to deny his existence.
And, btw, you cannot make an absolute negation if you do not have absolute knowledge.
If you say that God does not exist, you claim to have absolute knowledge.
I can make an assertion that God does not exist, without relegating myself to a puff of smoke. One little word; parsimony.
There is absolutely, positively not even the tiniest, weeniest shred of evidence that god exists at all. Nothing. Nada. The simplest explanation is that he does not exist.
You, of course, cannot deny the existance of invisible pink flying kittens. In fact, without using parsimony as an argument you, deej, cannot even say it's unlikely thay exist. Without parsimony, you cannot say that the truck driving towards you is not an illusion. We make billions of judgements every day based on parsimony. And yet, you refuse to apply it to your life fully. Oh, the hypocracy.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo. He is just showing a contradiction in you way of thinking. There is a logical impasse here. It cannot be gotten over logically. He takes us up a journey with a number of axioms (God exists and is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient), and then shows that this cannot present a viable conclusion. Therefore, one of the axioms must be false.
[b]1, 2 and 3 are premises. Feel free to attack the factual truth of the premises if you can; that is one way to show that a logical argument is weak.
1. If God is all-good, He would not have wished for evil to exist;[/i]
2. If God is all-powerful, He could have assured that evil didn't exist;
3. Evil exists;
For arguments sake, all these ...[text shortened]... to disprove a moral lawgiver and not prove one. Therefore your premises are all self defeating.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by scottishinnzThere is absolutely, positively not even the tiniest, weeniest shred of evidence that god exists at all. Nothing. Nada.
Wrong [b]again!!!! Don't you ever get sick of being wrong?
I can make an assertion that God does not exist, without relegating myself to a puff of smoke. One little word; parsimony.
There is absolutely, positively not even the tiniest, weeniest shred of evidence that god exists at all. Nothing. Nada. The simplest explanation ...[text shortened]... y based on parsimony. And yet, you refuse to apply it to your life fully. Oh, the hypocracy.[/b]
Once again you claim to have absolute knowledge. You are simply a bigot. I will not waste my time talking with you or even presenting evidence about the existence of God to you, as you have already made up your mind that God does not exist.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThere is currently no objective evidence of God. That's a simple fact. Perhaps you won't debate me because you know I'd beat you.
[b]There is absolutely, positively not even the tiniest, weeniest shred of evidence that god exists at all. Nothing. Nada.
Once again you claim to have absolute knowledge. You are simply a bigot. I will not waste my time talking with you or even presenting evidence about the existence of God to you, as you have already made up your mind that God does not exist.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat's your take on the book of Jonah?
[b]There is absolutely, positively not even the tiniest, weeniest shred of evidence that god exists at all. Nothing. Nada.
Once again you claim to have absolute knowledge. You are simply a bigot. I will not waste my time talking with you or even presenting evidence about the existence of God to you, as you have already made up your mind that God does not exist.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerdj, I think it's not a question of whether one has made up his mind or not. You yourself have made up your mind. That is entirely up to you. But from a neutral point of view, the so-called 'evidence' for the existence of God that you have presented here so far are no good in logical terms.
[b]There is absolutely, positively not even the tiniest, weeniest shred of evidence that god exists at all. Nothing. Nada.
Once again you claim to have absolute knowledge. You are simply a bigot. I will not waste my time talking with you or even presenting evidence about the existence of God to you, as you have already made up your mind that God does not exist.[/b]
Now I'd like to comment on your argument:
1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.
3. Evil is not YET defeated.
4. Therefore, God can and WILL ONE DAY defeat evil.
I think your conclusion in (4) above is unreasonable. The scientific approach is to conclude that there is in fact no God. IF, and only IF, God really does exist, then the most logical conclusion to make is that he is unable to defeat evil. God hasn't been able to defeat evil after thousands of years. If he hasn't been able to do it all those years, then it is more reasonable to assume that he can't do it. There is no evidence to show that he CAN defeat evil. Therefore the ONLY reasonable conclusion to me is that God CAN'T defeat evil. At best, I would describe your conclusion in (4) as something that you'd hope for, but so far never been realised.
Consider this line of thought:
1. IF humans are so clever, they can find Nessie;
2. IF humans don't give up in their search, they will eventually find Nessie;
3. Humans have not YET found Nessie;
4. Therefore, clever humans CAN and WILL ONE DAY find Nessie.
So, do you think we will find Nessie some day?
3 edits
1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.
2. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.
3. Evil is not YET defeated.
4. Therefore, God can and WILL ONE DAY defeat evil.
---------
I'd also like to comment on dj2's argument. The argument as presented is not even logically valid. I also have no idea what it means to "defeat evil" one day down the road.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I agree. However, I'd have to change your premise 1 to something like;
dj, I think it's not a question of whether one has made up his mind or not. You yourself have made up your mind. That is entirely up to you. But from a neutral point of view, the so-called 'evidence' for the existence of God that you have presented here so far are no good in logical terms.
Now I'd like to comment on your argument:
1. If God is all-go ...[text shortened]... ns CAN and WILL ONE DAY find Nessie.
So, do you think we will find Nessie some day?
1) an ominbenevolent God must destroy evil at the earliest possible juncture in time.
The reason for this is that an omnibenevolent God must, by definition, seek to minimise the amount of evil in the universe. An omnipotent God would have done so by now. Therefore, God is either (a) not omnipotent, (b) not omnibenevolent or (c) does not exist.
In an environment with a total lack of evidence for God the most parsimonious argument is (c).
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are retarded.
[b]1, 2 and 3 are premises. Feel free to attack the factual truth of the premises if you can; that is one way to show that a logical argument is weak.
1. If God is all-good, He would not have wished for evil to exist;[/i]
2. If God is all-powerful, He could have assured that evil didn't exist;
3. Evil exists;
For arguments sake, all these ...[text shortened]... to disprove a moral lawgiver and not prove one. Therefore your premises are all self defeating.[/b]
Originally posted by dj2beckerAnother moronic religious believer returns to the forums.
[b]1, 2 and 3 are premises. Feel free to attack the factual truth of the premises if you can; that is one way to show that a logical argument is weak.
1. If God is all-good, He would not have wished for evil to exist;[/i]
2. If God is all-powerful, He could have assured that evil didn't exist;
3. Evil exists;
For arguments sake, all these ...[text shortened]... to disprove a moral lawgiver and not prove one. Therefore your premises are all self defeating.[/b]
Welcome back.