|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: It should be obvious. You don’t get to invent your opponent’s position. Indeed, believing that human morality, intelligence and consciousness can be attribute to a cause which shares none of those properties does not invite an infinite regress. Insisting that the cause must also share those properties does. And that, too, would be obvious if you cared to consider why the suggestion of an infinite regress came up. And I for one do not believe in an infinite regress. Funny how you fail to address the more important point. How do you account for the morality, intelligence and consciousness of your hypothetical creator? Calling it timeless doesn’t do that. At all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Interesting that you should ask a question which doesn’t touch on the reasons why the points are obvious - and one I’ve already answered in this thread. But to explain why the points are obvious. Inventing positions for your opponents is less than honest and does nothing to refute their actual positions. Attributing human morality to a moral creator begs the question of where that creator got it’s morality from. Without any hint of an answer to that - indeed with the implicit rejection of other causes - a moral creator is the obvious answer. Thus you invite an infinite regress. Attributing human morality to causes that are not themselves moral obviously does not beg the question. The regress doesn’t even get started.
quote: What you ask doesn’t matter. You can’t force me into believing an infinite regress just by asking questions. And I don’t even need to evade the questions the way you do. So, I’ll suggest this. The process that formed our universe is a consequence of the existence of space-time.
quote: That isn’t what you said in Message 897:
My subjective explanation for a creative intelligence is that this creative intelligence is outside of time as we perceive it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I answered all the relevant questions and the other I had already answered in this thread.
quote: And I am offering a critique of your argument. Funny how you insist on irrelevancies while objecting to relevant points.
quote: I don’t. I’m just critiquing your argument.
quote: In reality you were attempting to argue that your position was more rational and I was pointing out that that was untrue.
quote: If I did, remind me of the post where I made that claim.
quote: And there is a lot of science to fill it, cosmology covers the origin of our universe and it’s early development, astronomy and related disciplines cover the formation of stars, galaxies and planets, abiogenesis covers the origin of life and evolution it’s subsequent development. Let us also note that this question is yet another diversion - and one that concedes my point. You claimed that my views entailed an infinite regress, yet you do not even attempt to show that.
quote: Which is yet another evasion into irrelevancy. A subjective answer is still an answer. An explanation is still an explanation even if it is a subjective belief. As for God, Phat says the believers are the evidence. What does your evasion and diversion and your refusal to engage in honest discussion tell us ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It’s an odd defence.
The assertion that God’s existence is obvious is obviously false. But the book goes on to falsely attack anyone who dares say so. So this is more evidence that it’s a scam. And a rather nasty-minded one at this point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Does it? It seems to me to be saying that everyone knows that God exists, so everyone who denies it deserves to be accused of dishonesty.
quote: Keep in mind, that while the general idea of inspiration is not as obviously false as the inerrantist silliness, it’s got some serious problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Not all that giving is good.
The preachers getting rich from poor Americans (BBC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: The desperate rationalisations are a bit of a giveaway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which means that the Church nominally owns the wealth and the clergy - at least those with the right position - get to enjoy it. And I bet that a lot of the Televangelists have a similar deal, for tax purposes if nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: No it doesn’t. Did you actually read the article you cited ?
The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function
Just another example of your clutching at straws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which means that consciousness is irrelevant to the observer effect.
quote: Only if you insist on begging the question. Measurements may be taken by instruments perfectly adequately.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
While it is getting on a bit now, J L Mackie’s The Miracle of Theism is a classic refutation of common arguments for God.
You can find it online at Scribd
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think I understand historical framework a little differently.
However
quote: This is correct. Exodus contains no useful dating material at all. The few things pointing to dates, point to dates too late to be correct. None of the Pharaohs is named. Exodus just doesn’t fit into history. Neither does Joshuah’s conquest. This, on the other hand I disagree with.
quote: The Gospels do place Jesus in an identifiable time and place. Pontius Pilate, Herod and his sons, even John the Baptist are known to history. Jesus himself is obscure enough to suggest that his faddish popularity was exaggerated by the Gospels but that obscurity is not sufficient to prove that he didn’t exist at all. That is not to say that the Gospel depiction of Jesus is accurate - it is likely extremely inaccurate in many ways.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: This does not change the fact that we have a historical setting for Jesus. One in which it is plausible that there was a human original (who worked no genuine miracles). A historical setting which is clearly lacking for the Parting of the Red Sea.
quote: I think it is quite forgivable to think that your insistence on contemporary evidence is intended to argue against the existence of a historical Jesus, and even if you do not the comment is still accurate and relevant.
quote: Oh, there are ways. For instance we can identify the inaccuracy of the Gospels by noting the major disagreements between them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And as was shown, is actually genocide. Or would be if it wasn’t fictiion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You do know that what you said there confirms my opinion that the things of the spirit are simply falsehoods, dressed up in religion to deceive.
quote: I was pointing out that the described actions fit the definition of genocide. Thus it is a fact that they are genocide and any denial is false. The UN definition of genocide states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Your intended distinction is simply not present in the definition, and is therefore irrelevant. As I stated in previous discussion you would do better to argue for justifiable genocide as a parallel to justifiable homicide. Edited by PaulK, : Fixed tag
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024