Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: arguments ....

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    169

    arguments ....

    Look around for something that does not have a cause (and therefore a beginning). This sequence can work backwards indefinitely. But does it go infinitely, or does it ultimately stop? To say that it goes on infinitely leads to a logical dilemma. Without some initial cause, there can be no caused things, and no explanation for causality itself. The only rational answer is that there is at the beginning of all things an uncaused Cause, capable of causing all things.
    -The Argument from Design: Nature manifests a certain irreducible complexity. The design in nature requires a Designer. God is the creator and designer of all things.
    -The Ontological Argument: The idea of God exists in the mind, even in the mind of an atheist. The event of one's mind understanding this idea must have a sufficient cause. The idea is one that contains infinite perfection, but one's mind is limited by finite perfection, as is everything else in the natural world. A mentally imperfect being cannot produce a mentally perfect effect. Therefore, there is a perfect Mind transcendent to the universe, from which the idea of perfection can originate.
    -The Moral Argument: Morality exists. Whether we are considering a stone-age Amazonian cannibal or an intellectual savant at a prestigious Ivy League school, every human being has some sense of morality. Everyone has some level of mental obligation to do good and avoid evil. Why else do we have laws, government, military, prisons, and self-improvement books? The atheistic view is incompatible with real moral obligation. Therefore, the theistic view, which is compatible with real moral obligation, must be correct. Moral obligation cannot originate in the mind of man, and therefore must originate in the mind of a greater being, which is God.
    Although these arguments bear some intellectual curiosity, they are by themselves insufficient to persuade someone not to be an atheist. Nor are they necessary to do so. In fact, some of the arguments for God (and there are many more) may actually be paralogisms. While arguments for the existence of God may help to demonstrate that belief in God is not irrational, there is more that is necessary to bring real confidence for the Christian. Furthermore, more than philosophical rationality is necessary to truly dissuade an atheist from his or her no-god beliefs.

    Here is where the atheist may begin to object. The atheist prefers to argue on the basis of logic, empiricism, or even philosophy as the only fair grounds for discussion. But logic, empiricism, and philosophy are only a tiny slice of reality. When the arguments against atheism get into spiritual issues, he or she may dismiss them as irrelevant. Although the atheist may be dissatisfied with the arguments, these are the only arguments which truly matter. The reality is, these spiritual issues are of utmost importance and relevance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    322
    Let's just give the universe that magic element of an "uncaused cause". It has as much grounds as a made up God does, and it cuts out an unnecessary middleman. Occam's Razor is in favor of this.

    This "argument from design" is no argument at all. Claiming a bunch of XXXX, like immediately claiming there is a "design in nature", and then substantiating it with nothing is not an argument.

    That ontological argument is retarded. What is the crackhead you copied this from talking about?

    There are as many different standards of right and wrong as there are people on earth. Even those who profess to be of the same faith can have widely varied moral values. In the face of this, to argue that our morals come from a God would mean God either gives everyone different morals, or there is a different God behind each person with differing morals. An idea that isn't quite as stupid as either of these is that what we call moral obligation is nothing more than how the individual has been raised and conditioned to act. And it is an objective fact that the way people are raised and how they're conditioned affects how they behave; it doesn't just come out of magic thin-air.


    You suck, Mano. And so does the idiot who actually wrote your pasted arguments in the first place.
    Last edited by Apostle; 03-11-2014 at 04:10 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostle View Post

    You suck, Mano. And so does the idiot who actually wrote your pasted arguments in the first place.
    Copy and paste plagiarism...that's all he has, all he has ever had and all he will ever have... and ignorant copy and paste plagiarism at that. He's shown he's a coward by refusing to debate me. He's not worth the effort.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    169
    "There are as many different standards of right and wrong as there are people on earth. Even those who profess to be of the same faith can have widely varied moral values"

    Many different Standards is something of an oxymoron..

    But see , you like to disparage but you offer absolutely nothing in exchange.

    Where do you get your values ,and why? Why are your values really values and not some justification to commit licentiousness .. did i spell that right?

    see, all atheists or scoffers are essentially intellectual frauds.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    322
    Different objective/universal standards would be an oxymoron. There can be more than one localized standard that exists in the world, like for a country, a household, and even between different individuals.

    As I've said, our morality is how we're conditioned to act. We get it from who we're around, what we hear and see, and what we grow to believe in over time and experience. As for what you argue, saying that it comes from a God is no explanation at all; I could say that morals come from the magic of my right pinkie toe and it would have as much merit and explanatory value as your claim.
    Last edited by Apostle; 03-12-2014 at 12:01 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostle View Post
    Different objective/universal standards would be an oxymoron. There can be more than one localized standard that exists in the world, like for a country, a household, and even between different individuals.

    As I've said, our morality is how we're conditioned to act. We get it from who we're around, what we hear and see, and what we grow to believe in over time and experience. As for what you argue, saying that it comes from a God is no explanation at all; I could say that morals come from the magic of my right pinkie toe and it would have as much merit and explanatory value as your claim.
    "There can be more than one localized standard that exists in the world, like for a country, a household, and even between different individuals."....So saith you.

    you can have different standards [different strokes for different folks] right . But there can only be one standard based on truth. You can't have differing truths in the plural. in fewer words what applies in the local must also apply in the big picture.

    its really simple arithmetic.

    my claims as you put it are not magical. it's how all humanity chooses to live. You're segwaying into

    today's culture and ignoring the past millenia on how mankind got to the present. Doing your own thing
    had nothing to do with it. Intelligent design, forming and framing humanity into God's image requires skill and rules to paint by. Did I go over your head ? sorry bout that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    322
    Not everyone can be right, but everyone can be wrong. There's also the possibility that there is no higher morality above our own individual opinions of what it might be. The morality of men no more relevant than the morality of dogs, in the grand scheme of things.

    Perhaps a little nihilistic, but a possibility.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostle View Post
    Not everyone can be right, but everyone can be wrong. There's also the possibility that there is no higher morality above our own individual opinions of what it might be. The morality of men no more relevant than the morality of dogs, in the grand scheme of things.

    Perhaps a little nihilistic, but a possibility.
    A possibility in the minds of lunatics.

    Man does not live by individual opinions of "WHAT MIGHT BE" .

    but by what provides him the means for survival.
    If religion and the faith it inspires could not , then mankind would've abandoned this practice ,when he first emerged from out of the cave.

    you're way off track .. how much education do you really have ? fess up!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    322
    Religions help to unite people, sure. They've done a lot to bring together whole civilizations.

    I do not see how that gives more credence to one religion or another, or even any of them, since even the false ones have giant, long lived followings.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Apostle View Post
    Religions help to unite people, sure. They've done a lot to bring together whole civilizations.

    I do not see how that gives more credence to one religion or another, or even any of them, since even the false ones have giant, long lived followings.
    so you concede there could be a TRUE ONE? you're making progress.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    322
    I did say that moral relativism was only a possibility, yes, which means that there actually could be a greater/absolute right & wrong, beyond what our opinions of that might be.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Oregon,Linn County
    Posts
    1,991
    =Apostle;478822]Religions help to unite people, sure. They've done a lot to bring together whole civilizations.
    As long as they are of the same religions sure. They've also caused war between civilizations more often then not.
    I do not see how that gives more credence to one religion or another, or even any of them, since even the false ones have giant, long lived followings.
    And your right,yet each WILL insist theirs is the correct one even the false ones if indeed they are false. I'm really not counting The Cookie Monster Religion here.But hey...
    Gun Control? "We'll Fight Them, Sir!, Until Hell Freezes Over, And Then We'll Fight Them On The Ice! Sir!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •