Christian forums

[Napoleon Ier]

1/One would first like to point out that they are called Ontological Arguments, not proofs.

2/Then one would like to point out the sheer ridiculousness of some of these arguments. Just because it can exist doesn't mean it does.

3/Then one would like to point out the existence of counter ontological arguments, which completely invalidate the original arguments.

1/One would then have revealed his utter ignorance.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preuve_ontologique_de_G%C3%B6del

2/The ontological proofs do not reach this conclusiuon. Again, not quite sure how or where you learnt your philosophy, but I may suggest a little more reading before defending the proposition that the Bible is the only [sic] evidence for God.

3/One would then demand to see these arguments in order to formulate appropriate rebuttals...

[john9blue]

Right, so, if I can get this straight, without "teh Bibol", there's no evidence for God?

Yeah.........Anselm, Augustine, Augustine, Leibniz, Descartes, ontological argument? Cosmological argument? Goldilock's enigma? No? I don't know, let's be adventurous, proof from Teleology?

Just remember, Napoleon, those old-fashioned, simple-minded folks with their outworn logic are no match for the brilliant atheists that contribute to the forum. </sarcasm>

I'm pretty sure they thought they were going to heaven, just as you do now. It's not so much they didn't live like christ, they didn't live like you, and according to you, you live like christ. If they saw you knowing you were a christian, I'm sure they'd have the same kind of view you have on them. Christianity is all subjective. There's no right or wrong.

Right, so I’m the one here who thinks I’m perfect? Something tells me that one of the reasons you are all atheists is because you won’t accept that you aren’t the supreme beings in the universe.

Sure, I’m a human, I deviate from the Church, I sin. I said that Jenos wasn’t completely wrong for a reason. Living like Christ is a goal, which almost nobody reaches.

[Neoteny]

Something tells me that one of the reasons you are all atheists is because you won’t accept that you aren’t the supreme beings in the universe.

Really now... seriously?

[Frigidus]

Right, so I’m the one here who thinks I’m perfect? Something tells me that one of the reasons you are all atheists is because you won’t accept that you aren’t the supreme beings in the universe.

Sure, I’m a human, I deviate from the Church, I sin. I said that Jenos wasn’t completely wrong for a reason. Living like Christ is a goal, which almost nobody reaches.

Are you serious? Do you believe in a god because you can't believe that there isn't someone higher than you? Hopefully not. We've looked at the evidence and found it lacking. It isn't like we thought to ourselves "Well, they make good points that I can't refute, but I'm uncomfortable with the thought of a higher being. I'll just cover my ears and yell 'LALALALALA' until they go away." The idea of god(s) and some form of heaven is comforting, not controlling.

[john9blue]

Yeah, I'm serious. Didn't you see the "end sarcasm" tag?

[Frigidus]

Yeah, I'm serious. Didn't you see the "end sarcasm" tag?

Well, that's disturbing. Hateful even.

[Neoteny]

Yeah, I'm serious. Didn't you see the "end sarcasm" tag?

</end listening to john9blue>

[got tonkaed]

i think he was joking....

you can also turn that idea around though to claim that believers only believe in God because they do not like the idea that they are not the most supreme creation in all of existence (notwithstanding the creator of course)

historically theres a lot of evidence that suggests people were quite pleased with the notion that humanity was the greatest creation and that earth was the best of all possible worlds.

[Neoteny]

i think he was joking....

you can also turn that idea around though to claim that believers only believe in God because they do not like the idea that they are not the most supreme creation in all of existence (notwithstanding the creator of course)

historically theres a lot of evidence that suggests people were quite pleased with the notion that humanity was the greatest creation and that earth was the best of all possible worlds.

I hope he was...

[john9blue]

What I think is disturbing is the fact that you generalize Christians by spreading stuff like that "Top 100 fundamentalist quotes" around, and then start hating when I remark on your personalities.

i think he was joking....

you can also turn that idea around though to claim that believers only believe in God because they do not like the idea that they are not the most supreme creation in all of existence (notwithstanding the creator of course)

historically theres a lot of evidence that suggests people were quite pleased with the notion that humanity was the greatest creation and that earth was the best of all possible worlds.

Definitely wasn't joking. And of course people were pleased with the idea, it makes humans feel special. And yes, I think it's entirely possible that there are other beings out there, just as I think that evolution is entirely possible. What I'm saying is that these points don't disprove God. In fact, it's quite impossible to disprove God, only some of the things that people had previously attributed to God.

[Neoteny]

What I think is disturbing is the fact that you generalize Christians by spreading stuff like that "Top 100 fundamentalist quotes" around, and then start hating when I remark on your personalities.

i think he was joking....

you can also turn that idea around though to claim that believers only believe in God because they do not like the idea that they are not the most supreme creation in all of existence (notwithstanding the creator of course)

historically theres a lot of evidence that suggests people were quite pleased with the notion that humanity was the greatest creation and that earth was the best of all possible worlds.

Definitely wasn't joking. And of course people were pleased with the idea, it makes humans feel special. And yes, I think it's entirely possible that there are other beings out there, just as I think that evolution is entirely possible. What I'm saying is that these points don't disprove God. In fact, it's quite impossible to disprove God, only some of the things that people had previously attributed to God.

Well, there ya go. And with my newfound understanding of why I am an atheist, I will continue my efforts to repress Christians in America by compiling a list of all pastors caught in compromising homosexual situations...

stay tuned!

[Frigidus]

What I think is disturbing is the fact that you generalize Christians by spreading stuff like that "Top 100 fundamentalist quotes" around, and then start hating when I remark on your personalities.

I'm sure there are equally horrific quotes from athiests on the web, and if they were posted I'd be disgusted with them too. I'm not taking sides with bigots and fools no matter what their beliefs on the nature of the universe, and that wasn't the point (I hope) of posting the quotes.

Definitely wasn't joking. And of course people were pleased with the idea, it makes humans feel special. And yes, I think it's entirely possible that there are other beings out there, just as I think that evolution is entirely possible. What I'm saying is that these points don't disprove God. In fact, it's quite impossible to disprove God, only some of the things that people had previously attributed to God.

How can you be serious? It's mind boggling. You can honestly admit that you can't prove or disprove god(s), and at the same time claim that the reason athiests don't believe is because they think so highly of themselves that they can't imagine god(s) in their universe? It would be like me saying Christians believe because they want to continue existing after they die. It's just stupid.

[Neutrino]

1/One would then have revealed his utter ignorance.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preuve_ontologique_de_G%C3%B6del

One would first like to point out that linking a French webpage on an English speaking forum, in which the debate you are participating in is conducted entirely in English, is pretty pointless, and that the English Wikipedia page refers to them as arguments.

2/The ontological proofs do not reach this conclusiuon. Again, not quite sure how or where you learnt your philosophy, but I may suggest a little more reading before defending the proposition that the Bible is the only [sic] evidence for God.

Please, link this poor, pathetic mortal to non-Biblical evidence proving the existence of the Christian God.

3/One would then demand to see these arguments in order to formulate appropriate rebuttals...

Bottom half of the above Wikipedia link.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/One would then have revealed his utter ignorance.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preuve_ontologique_de_G%C3%B6del

One would first like to point out that linking a French webpage on an English speaking forum, in which the debate you are participating in is conducted entirely in English, is pretty pointless, and that the English Wikipedia page refers to them as arguments.

An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone

[Napoleon Ier]

2/The ontological proofs do not reach this conclusiuon. Again, not quite sure how or where you learnt your philosophy, but I may suggest a little more reading before defending the proposition that the Bible is the only [sic] evidence for God.

Please, link this poor, pathetic mortal to non-Biblical evidence proving the existence of the Christian God.

3/One would then demand to see these arguments in order to formulate appropriate rebuttals...

Bottom half of the above Wikipedia link.

1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.

2/Ahhh....Gasking! This is a joke. Parameter one is just wrong, then simply, how can you conclude something does not exist if this assertion is based on its properties. God having created something impressive doesn't entail non-existance, it is a logical impossibility. A logical paradox.

[Neutrino]

An ontological argument for the existence of God is one that attempts the method of a priori proof, which utilizes intuition and reason alone

Semantics.

By the very nature of priori, it cannot prove anything. Proof requires evidence, something which a solely priori argument cannot provide. A priori argument can suggest an answer, but it cannot prove it.

1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.

There are whole worlds of difference between a God and the Christian God. What if it's actually the Hindu pantheon that created the universe? What about the Norse one? Egyptian? Roman? Greek? Aztec?
None of the forms of arguments that you provided can prove the existence of the Christian God. With no information supporting the existence of the Christian God, it is hugely (if not infinitely) unlikely that the Christian God as detailed in the Bible created the universe, solely through the existence of so many alternatives.

P.S. Cosmological arguments are just plain outdated. Why should causality always be in effect, and why should everything have a cause?

2/Ahhh....Gasking! This is a joke. Parameter one is just wrong, then simply, how can you conclude something does not exist if this assertion is based on its properties. God having created something impressive doesn't entail non-existance, it is a logical impossibility. A logical paradox.

[/quote]

To me it seems no more ridiculous or paradoxical than Anselem's argument, which requires humanity to be capable of imagining infinity, which it cannot.

[Colossus]

Howdy folks. I know I haven't been around for some time, and I certainly haven't read any of the preceding conversation, but I thought I'd pop in to recommend a book I just finished reading. The book is called 'Finding Darwin's God', and in my opinion it is an excellent read for believer and non-believer alike. It was written by a molecular biology and biochemistry professor from Brown University who also happens to be a firm believer. Incidentally, his arguments in the book parallel some of the arguments that I tried to make in these forums a few months back regarding the relationship between the new physics (i.e. quantum physics) of the twentieth century and what science can say about God. I realize that the gentleman who wrote this book, Kenneth Miller, is someone that strict creationists may have a hard time reading since he has been a staunch vocal opponent to teaching 'creation science' in American schools. However, for anyone who is interested in the current debate in our society regarding the seeming opposition of science and faith and who is capable of reading something with a remotely open mind, this book is very much worth reading, I think.

As Dr. Miller points out, and I very much agree, the logical conclusion when one considers man's best understanding of the world is that science has proven that it can never disprove the existence of God or His past, present, or future role in the formation and function of the Universe.

Sorry for the interruption...let the quibbling continue.

[Frigidus]

Sorry for the interruption...let the quibbling continue.

Sometimes we need to take a breather. I might just check it out.

[Guiscard]

1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.

And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.

And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.

Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.

[unriggable]

The bible is evidence for god just as much as aesop's fables is evidence for talking turtles. The problem with god is that he is not disprovable. Many did not want to believe that the earth was the third planet from the center because it would disprove god, and it didn't (same goes for evolution).

[Snorri1234]

1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.

And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.

Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.

It's not evidence, plain and simple. They're arguments for a god, not proof of it. While ofcourse they can be convincing, arguments against god can too.

[Neutrino]

Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.

You managed to find time for fooling around in your thesaurus and dictionary for half an hour in a vague attempt to seem intellectual for Guiscard's post, yet you can't spend 30 seconds admitting "Neutrino is better than me in every concievable way" as a responce to my significantly larger and earlier post?

If you don't want to acknowledge my superiority to all humanity, why don't you at least make some vague gesture in the direction of actually formulating a proper response?

[Napoleon Ier]

Neutrino, you reject a priori truth. So with the almost non-existant respect due to your person, you're fucking insane.

[Napoleon Ier]

1/ Google teleological, ontological, an cosmological arguments, just as you know, a simple crash course starter, before reading page 1 of philosophy for dummies.

And that 'philosophy for dummies' will, in chapter two, tell you in very simple stages (although stages you seem to be unable to grasp, Nappy) how each of those arguments is far from concrete and, indeed, has fairly significant criticisms.

Of course. I'm not denying that, what I am saying is that the Bible isn't "the only shred of evidence" for God. I mean, you're somebody, on an intellectual level, with whom one can(usually) have a reasoned discussion, even if heavily influenced by the Masonic usurpation of politico-mediatic nomenklatura, these cretins however are nothing but lobotomized slaves of this abject secular humanism that gives them their nauseating and pitiful air of conceited supremacy.

It's not evidence, plain and simple. They're arguments for a god, not proof of it. While ofcourse they can be convincing, arguments against god can too.

Hahahahahah a humeist arguing that a priori reasoning is invalid compared to a posteriori

Snorri...I'd come that close to respecting you