Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Case Against the Existence of God
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 301 (302121)
04-07-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dan Carroll
04-07-2006 4:49 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Ok, if it's a false dilemma, give me the other options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 4:49 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 301 (302123)
04-07-2006 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Dan Carroll
04-07-2006 4:49 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
From the page on the fallacy:
Proof:
Identify the options given and show (with an example) that there is an additional option.
Do so then with the two possibilities Robin has declared to be the only two, and give an example. That is the test. So far many such examples have been offered on this topic and they are not genuine third options.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 04:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 4:49 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 301 (302124)
04-07-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 4:36 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
something ain't right here, why are there two message 191's?
Now, there are 2 explanations for the origins of the universe:
1. It was created by an eternal Being
2. It has always existed in some form.
There are your choices. There are no others.
False. It could have not existed in some form and then came into existance, not by an eternal being, but for no reason at all.
It would have to be the Being described in the OP.
False. It could be the Green Lantern. But, for the purpose of this thread we will consider it that being.
OK, assuming the first premis is true and considering the being in the OP, now you have to show how that being makes a contradiction with something we know is true and you've got a case against the existance of the god described in the OP, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:36 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 200 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

ThingsChange
Member (Idle past 5925 days)
Posts: 315
From: Houston, Tejas (Mexican Colony)
Joined: 02-04-2004


Message 198 of 301 (302127)
04-07-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Faith
04-07-2006 4:45 PM


Hearsay
quote:
Predominantly the credibility and integrity of thousands through the millennia who have believed them. I originally believed them by believing Christians who wrote about them.
Is it called hearsay if someone tells you what they saw? I don't think so.
Assuming we agree that the witnesses did not write the New Testament books (written much later), the true authors were relaying what they heard from others. Isn't that hearsay?
One more branch up the tree: Why do you believe inerrancy of these writers instead of some fuzzy interpretive truth like Phat does?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 4:45 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 7:15 PM ThingsChange has not replied
 Message 258 by Phat, posted 04-08-2006 4:14 AM ThingsChange has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 301 (302129)
04-07-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 4:55 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
but for no reason at all.
Nothing can come from nothing.
OK, assuming the first premis is true and considering the being in the OP, now you have to show how that being makes a contradiction with something we know is true and you've got a case against the existance of the god described in the OP, right?
What I did in the OP was ask a question. Was there such a case? But I am tinkering with some ideas. There is the argument for the "lack of design," for example. I haven't got it worked it out yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:05 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 205 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:15 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 301 (302132)
04-07-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 4:55 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
It could be the Green Lantern
Not unless Green Lantern is another name for God. He would be merely a being arising from Nature. Revert to #2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 4:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:08 PM robinrohan has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 301 (302135)
04-07-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
What I did in the OP was ask a question. Was there such a case?
And the answer is no. Case closed.
Nothing can come from nothing.
Something can come from something.
Nothing can come from something.
Something can come from nothing.
This game's no fun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 301 (302137)
04-07-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
It would have to be the Being described in the OP.
False. It could be the Green Lantern.
Not unless Green Lantern is another name for God. He would be merely a being arising from Nature. Revert to #2.
It wasn't a reply to your false delimma, it was a reply to it having to be the god described in the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:01 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 301 (302139)
04-07-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 5:05 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Something can come from something.
Nothing can come from something.
Something can come from nothing.
This game's no fun.
No, nothing can come from nothing. There always had to be something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:16 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 211 by ThingsChange, posted 04-07-2006 5:22 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 301 (302141)
04-07-2006 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 5:08 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
It wasn't a reply to your false delimma, it was a reply to it having to be the god described in the OP.
Well, let's have your argument. How is it a false dilemma? How is my argument about the God in the OP wrong?
These matters are tricky. I might very well be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:18 PM robinrohan has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 301 (302142)
04-07-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 4:59 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Ok, if it's a false dilemma, give me the other options.
The universe arose on its own through natural means.
Nothing can come from nothing.
Well, this is a fun game. I'll play too! You can't have a being outside the natural universe.
Nothing like a rollicking good round of "I said it; therefore it's true."

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 4:59 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:18 PM Dan Carroll has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 301 (302143)
04-07-2006 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:09 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
No, nothing can come from nothing. There always had to be something.
That doesn't refute the point that there doesn't have to be a 'reason', such as a creator, for the existance of the universe to emerge while it hasn't existed forever. It could have came into being naturally, without a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:09 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 301 (302145)
04-07-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by robinrohan
04-07-2006 5:12 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
Well, let's have your argument.
Both of you premises are false.
How is it a false dilemma?
see previous post.
How is my argument about the God in the OP wrong?
It doesn't have to have the attributes you described.
I might very well be wrong.
Oh, you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:12 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by robinrohan, posted 04-07-2006 5:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 301 (302146)
04-07-2006 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Dan Carroll
04-07-2006 5:15 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
The universe arose on its own through natural means.
Natural means? Does that not presuppose nature? How can you have a "natural means" without nature? That's option #2.
Well, this is a fun game. I'll play too! You can't have a being outside the natural universe.
Nothing like a rollicking good round of "I said it; therefore it's true."
What are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:15 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by JustinC, posted 04-07-2006 5:29 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 217 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-07-2006 5:31 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 301 (302147)
04-07-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2006 5:16 PM


Re: Satheism, Watheism
That doesn't refute the point that there doesn't have to be a 'reason', such as a creator, for the existance of the universe to emerge while it hasn't existed forever. It could have came into being naturally, without a god.
Don't you need a "nature" for something to occur naturally?
nature is another word for the universe.
So the universe came from the universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2006 5:28 PM robinrohan has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024