INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Arguments for the existence of God

For topics that are more about faith, religion and religious organisations than anything else.
Message
Author
mickeyd
Posts: 143
Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#761 Postby mickeyd » January 14th, 2011, 10:36 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Animist,

Poppycock. Because I disagree with you I must be full of pride? Doesn't that make you full of pride?

And as I say, if you would just answer my question you might see why I have nothing to acknowledge to you. Why do you find it hard to believe that something can come from nothing?

Mick

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#762 Postby Alan C. » January 14th, 2011, 10:44 pm

Mick, it''s a bit sad that you "religious" folk need to seek approval for your delusions from non believers, what is it with you guys? Do you think the more folk that profess "belief" The more likely it is to be true? That's not how it works.

I don't think you'll win any converts on this forum so what are you doing here?
Bolstering you're own credulity?
38 pages of circular reasoning" I think it's time to move on.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6477
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#763 Postby animist » January 14th, 2011, 10:50 pm

mickeyd wrote:Animist,

I see, so any one who disagrees with you is full of pride? Doesn't that mean your full of pride?


Mick

no, Mick, it's just you. Bye, and I really am not saying any more. You will have had the last word, no doubt, bully for you!

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#764 Postby Alan C. » January 14th, 2011, 11:11 pm

Mickey Dolenz (monkey)
I see, so any one who disagrees with you is full of pride? Doesn't that mean your (sic) full of pride?
A typical fundie spelling mistake is a good way to bow out mick,
Bye, close the door on your way out.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#765 Postby Nick » January 14th, 2011, 11:43 pm

mickeyd wrote:
Nick wrote:Why should theism provide a better explanation for consciousness than deism?
Because (a) God did not create the universe out of himself
WTF? How the hell did you get there?

(pantheism, which is logically invalid)
a) who (TF) mentioned pantheism? b) why is it invalid? and c) please explain the logic. :shrug:

and therefore it depends on his continuous creative activity every moment of its being,
a) WTF does that mean? b) why? c) WFT does that mean, again?

which is the antithesis of deism,
because? :shrug: Can you provide a single logical piece of evidence why this may be so, let alone conclusive evidence why it is so?

and (b) consciousness is a creation ex nihilo within a universal creation ex nihilo,
WTF are you on about? Really, have you been at the sauce? I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it possible to provide any evidence? Or even any explanation? Have you any idea how absurd that sounds IRL?


since it cannot be explained in terms of any of its unconscious antecedents;
I don't think you words are capable of explanation! WTF are you on about?

therefore,
How have you prove it's causation?

it's emergence cannot be accounted for by the deistic hypothesis.
Bollox. I am no clearer about you argument than when you started.

As for the rest of your post, refer to my latest post to thundril.
Which leaves me still in the dark about any justification.

Cheers,
Hmmm... have you been drinking....?

Should I have been drinking....?

User avatar
Lifelinking
Posts: 3248
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#766 Postby Lifelinking » January 15th, 2011, 12:17 am

I would stand you a pint Nick
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#767 Postby thundril » January 15th, 2011, 1:02 am

I think we can all have a pint now.
Anyway, what happened to 'Arguments for the existence of MickeyD?
If he didn't exist would we have to invent him?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 628
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#768 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » January 15th, 2011, 1:16 am

mickeyd wrote:Hi Thundril,

Theists cannot 'prove' the existence of god by logic, and atheists cannot 'prove' the non-existence of god by logical wrangling either.


Agreed.

But then the best explanation is the one which encompasses the widest range of phenomena under consideration [...]


Apologies to thundril for butting in.

mickeyd, what exactly did you agree with when you said " Agreed"?

On the face of it, you have simply abandoned your initial claim to have proof. But the fact that you have carried on suggests that you have not abandoned the claim at all. And that suggestion is fortified by what you go on to say about best explanation and so on.

What's going on? Have you abandoned your claim? Or are you now defining it? Or are you implying that the burden of proof has shifted? Or something else entirely?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

mickeyd
Posts: 143
Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#769 Postby mickeyd » January 15th, 2011, 12:58 pm

Thundril,

Where you're wrong is in asserting that rationality and logic are one and the same, and that therefore a rational proof of a proposition, whilst it cannot be contrary to logic, necessarily depends on logic to refute every alternative proposition. Your completely ignoring all the logical paradoxes, which are products of human rationality, yet are logically irresolvable. Rationality does not equal logic.

Your concept of rationality is too narrow and reflects the malaise in philosophy inflicted by logical positivism.

Cheers,
Mick

mickeyd
Posts: 143
Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#770 Postby mickeyd » January 15th, 2011, 1:22 pm

Hi animist,

Look, let's get one thing straight. There are people on this earth who respect me, and they don't do so because I'm full of pride. So I regard your comment as a silly outburst.

We have engaged in debate on the question of whether or not something can from nothing. Part of my response to your position is to point out to you your own statement, namely, that you find the notion of something from nothing hard to believe, and then to query the reason(s) why you find it hard. This is part of my answer to you. I've explained in detail why I reject the notion, essentially because I believe it attributes a functionality to non-existence that is meaningless to assert - it's to use words without meaning.

Cheerio,
Mick

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#771 Postby thundril » January 15th, 2011, 3:37 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:

Apologies to thundril for butting in.


No probs, LMo'G, I'd finished anyway.

mickeyd
Posts: 143
Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#772 Postby mickeyd » January 15th, 2011, 7:48 pm

Hi Lord Muck,

What's going on? Have you abandoned your claim? Or are you now defining it? Or are you implying that the burden of proof has shifted? Or something else entirely?


I'm talking about 'proof'. What is sad about listening to Thundril is that he wants to restrict the human mind to being nothing but a logic unit, a computer.

I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'. I can't logically invalidate the proposition, and that's why I'm taking flak. But sometimes you just have to put your hand up and say "No way", whether others call you a fool or not.

Cheers,
Mick

User avatar
Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#773 Postby Fia » January 15th, 2011, 8:44 pm

mickeyd wrote: I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'.


Which, rather beautifully I think, exemplifies the difference between your stance and mine.
I am perfectly content - in my heartiest of heartiests - to really believe the universe just is. There is no need for me to fill in that current gap of knowledge with a creator. That's what got us into this mess in the first place...

Until proved otherwise, which has patently yet to be done here, "just is" is fine by me.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#774 Postby Alan C. » January 15th, 2011, 8:46 pm

mick
I'm talking about 'proof'.
Are you having a laugh? You've provided zero proof for any of your assertions in the whole 39 pages of this topic.

What is sad about listening to Thundril is that he wants to restrict the human mind to being nothing but a logic unit,
There is no restriction involved, the human mind is a logic unit (unless it has been high jacked by one of the "religious" cults.
I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'.
I do. What's your alternative? That the universe "just isn't" and we're all living in some kind of matrix?
I can't logically invalidate the proposition,

No surprise there then.
and that's why I'm taking flak. But sometimes you just have to put your hand up and say "No way", whether others call you a fool or not.
Fool.

Cross posting with Fia.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#775 Postby lewist » January 15th, 2011, 9:53 pm

Fia wrote:
mickeyd wrote:...Until proved otherwise, which has patently yet to be done here, "just is" is fine by me....
And me.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#776 Postby Nick » January 16th, 2011, 12:55 am

Yup. Me too. :)

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 628
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#777 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » January 16th, 2011, 1:01 am

mickeyd wrote:Hi Lord Muck,

What's going on? Have you abandoned your claim? Or are you now defining it? Or are you implying that the burden of proof has shifted? Or something else entirely?


I'm talking about 'proof'.


That's clear enough. You have, with admirable frankness, abandoned your claim.

I simply do not believe that anyone, in their heart of hearts, can really believe that the universe 'just is'. I can't logically invalidate the proposition, and that's why I'm taking flak. But sometimes you just have to put your hand up and say "No way", whether others call you a fool or not.


Well, I shan't call you a fool, but I suggest that you have gone wrong as many others have gone wrong before. Whether the universe just is goes back to the discussion many pages ago about contingency. If by the universe we mean the whole shooting-match, then there is nothing at all left over on which it might or might not be contingent. And the apparent question whether it might be contingent on God trades on uncertainty about counting him in or out of the whole shooting-match.

Mind you, I shan't be surprised if you disagree with my diagnosis...
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#778 Postby thundril » January 16th, 2011, 1:04 am

When we stop supposing that beauty, wonder, love, magic, and comedy would have to come from something outside, we can start having some respect for the human mind.
And yes, the human soul.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 628
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#779 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » January 16th, 2011, 1:28 am

thundril wrote:When we stop supposing that beauty, wonder, love, magic, and comedy would have to come from something outside, we can start having some respect for the human mind.
And yes, the human soul.


[A maj]
Brothers and sisters, let me hear an Amen!
[/E fifth]
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6477
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#780 Postby animist » January 16th, 2011, 8:27 am

thundril wrote:When we stop supposing that beauty, wonder, love, magic, and comedy would have to come from something outside, we can start having some respect for the human mind.
And yes, the human soul.

I'll break my vow of silence to second that superb thought, Thun :wink:

mickeyd
Posts: 143
Joined: September 6th, 2010, 10:54 am

Re: Arguments for the existence of God

#781 Postby mickeyd » January 16th, 2011, 11:18 pm

Dear All,

The proof of God goes beyond logic, it's in your HEARTS and ALL AROUND YOU!

Goodbye and God Bless!

Mike Dyson


Return to “Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests