| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Realityis" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2004 08:24:55 PM |
| Object: |
Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
.
|
|
| User: "ChuckPFb" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
26 Aug 2004 02:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
No.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 12:12:37 AM |
|
|
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Epic" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 05:42:17 AM |
|
|
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to defend
your claims.
Realityis
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 11:46:16 AM |
|
|
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to know I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want to clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be thousands of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Realityis" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 04:21:01 PM |
|
|
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to
Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there
is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to
defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to know
I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want to
clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be thousands
of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to hear from
anyone else.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 11:37:18 PM |
|
|
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to
Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a "miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all there
is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to
defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to know
I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want to
clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be thousands
of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to hear from
anyone else.
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle dixie.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example. We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 12:16:11 AM |
|
|
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo1ruFbj1okU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but
so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to
Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people
is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was
flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a
"miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the
existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all
there
is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a
flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't
qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to
defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to
know
I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want
to
clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be
thousands
of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to hear
from
anyone else.
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 12:50:31 AM |
|
|
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo1ruFbj1okU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented but
so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to
Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen people
is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a "Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was
flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a
"miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the
existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all
there
is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a
flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't
qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to
defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to
know
I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want
to
clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be
thousands
of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to hear
from
anyone else.
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for? I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
Tace atque abi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout Lady" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 07:06:35 AM |
|
|
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658Fcn9ebU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo1ruFbj1okU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are
not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented
but
so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the
logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal
to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to
Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen
people
is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a
"Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was
flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a
"miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the
existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all
there
is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a
flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't
qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared
to
defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to
know
I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't
want
to
clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be
thousands
of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to
hear
from
anyone else.
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
Tace atque abi.
Not a chance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 11:34:36 PM |
|
|
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:fVGVc.2385$VY.870@trndny09...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658Fcn9ebU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo1ruFbj1okU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are
not
fallacious?
In my years of lurking I have seen a few arguments presented
but
so
far I think all of them fit the definition of one of the
logical
fallacies.
The first cause argument is "Special Pleading".
The "I just know in my heart that he is there" is an "Appeal
to
Emotion" or maybe a "Wishful Thinking" fallacy.
The "Look how many people believe in him" is an "Appeal to
Popularity"
fallacy.
The one Duke mentions about the success of God's chosen
people
is a
"Questionable Cause" or maybe a "Non Sequitur" or a
"Anecdotal
Evidence" Fallacy. The same with the one Dan Barker was
flogging
around a.a. a few months back about how he had seen a
"miraculous
change in drug addicts that could only be explained by the
existence
of God".
Has anybody seen a non-fallacious argument? Have I seen all
there
is?
Is that all that can be offered is fallacious arguments?
I was thinking maybe St Anselm's proof but then isn't it a
flawed
argument in that its premises are questionable so it doesn't
qualify
as valid argument?
Fallacy Lists:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accent
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared
to
defend
your claims.
Realityis
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to
know
I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't
want
to
clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be
thousands
of
posts from all comers. The Catholics can fend for themselves.
If you'd prefer send me an email at
bad_baptist@hotmail.com (underscore between bad and baptist)
That is kind of a strange request.
It seems to imply that you have "The Answer" and I don't need to
hear
from
anyone else.
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
Tace atque abi.
Not a chance.
Cepe indicum Canis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Realityis" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 10:22:28 AM |
|
|
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658Fcn9ebU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
<snip>
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
Tace atque abi.
supprime tuum stultiloquium!
If you are trying to use the Bible as an argument for the existence of God I
think you will end up in a "Begging the Question" or "Circular Argument"
fallacy pretty quickly.
"God must exist."
"How do you know."
"Because the Bible says so."
"Why should I believe the Bible?"
"Because the Bible was written by God."
reference:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 12:04:19 AM |
|
|
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:UMJVc.8612$UYx.5040@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658Fcn9ebU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
<snip>
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
Tace atque abi.
supprime tuum stultiloquium!
Right. Ut si!
If you are trying to use the Bible as an argument for the existence of God I
think you will end up in a "Begging the Question" or "Circular Argument"
fallacy pretty quickly.
No just a prophecy contained in the bible that has evidence of being completed.
But hey you can always argue that the dude who wrote it down just got lucky.
Then if you take the 8 most common prophecies concerning Jesus which are clearly
met in the person of Jesus the odds against those 8 prophecies being all correct
are rather high, but they are all 8 dead on. So is it luck or is there someting
to it.
You figure it out.
"God must exist."
Why?
"How do you know."
You wouldn't believe me.
"Because the Bible says so."
That ain't it.
"Why should I believe the Bible?"
Really?
"Because the Bible was written by God."
Prove it.
reference:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Realityis" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 08:49:11 PM |
|
|
<snip>
If you are trying to use the Bible as an argument for the existence of
God I
think you will end up in a "Begging the Question" or "Circular Argument"
fallacy pretty quickly.
No just a prophecy contained in the bible that has evidence of being
completed.
But hey you can always argue that the dude who wrote it down just got
lucky.
Then if you take the 8 most common prophecies concerning Jesus which are
clearly
met in the person of Jesus the odds against those 8 prophecies being all
correct
are rather high, but they are all 8 dead on. So is it luck or is there
someting
to it.
The Bible is not an independently coroborated historical text.
Much of the arceological evidence available does not support the bibles
version of events (at least it doesn't support the old testement).
See the following reference: "The Bible Unearthed"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684869128/104-2344108-9750324
?v=glance
Even many theist scholars admit that Jesus's existence cannot be established
with certainty.
See the following reference: "Honest to Jesus"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060627581/qid=1093225547/sr=ka-3/ref
=pd_ka_3/104-2344108-9750324
It may be possible to construct a valid argument for God using this approach
but the premises will be pretty shaky and it will probably end up being
circular in nature.
You figure it out.
"God must exist."
Why?
"How do you know."
You wouldn't believe me.
"Because the Bible says so."
That ain't it.
"Why should I believe the Bible?"
Really?
"Because the Bible was written by God."
Prove it.
I was giving an example of a fallacous circular argument. It was not an
argument I was trying to make.
reference:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 09:38:33 PM |
|
|
A-Theist wrote:
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:UMJVc.8612$UYx.5040@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658Fcn9ebU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
<snip>
Not at all. I'm just trying to be considerate. If you want I'll just
forge on.
Keep an open mind though or I'll split faster than you can whistle
dixie.
What he means is when you show his fallacy he will try to insult you and
then say Plonk.
As for cluttering up the newsgroups, isn't that what they are for?
I
was
hoping I would get answers from a variety of sources.
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as
example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the
prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
This is going to be so fun to watch!
Tace atque abi.
supprime tuum stultiloquium!
Right. Ut si!
If you are trying to use the Bible as an argument for the existence of God I
think you will end up in a "Begging the Question" or "Circular Argument"
fallacy pretty quickly.
No just a prophecy contained in the bible that has evidence of being completed.
But hey you can always argue that the dude who wrote it down just got lucky.
Then if you take the 8 most common prophecies concerning Jesus which are clearly
met in the person of Jesus the odds against those 8 prophecies being all correct
are rather high, but they are all 8 dead on. So is it luck or is there someting
to it.
You figure it out.
"God must exist."
Why?
"How do you know."
You wouldn't believe me.
"Because the Bible says so."
That ain't it.
"Why should I believe the Bible?"
Really?
"Because the Bible was written by God."
The bible was written by men to project their god to simple minded people. no god
has ever appeared let alone written anything. And come to think of it, why should
an all powerful, world creating god, rely on a man made book to 'speak' to his
flock, does he not have the power to reach us for real!?
time to grow up; it is now 2004
Prove it.
reference:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 08:39:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:04:19 -0600 in episode
<2oqnqkFdci41U1@uni-berlin.de> we saw our hero "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net>:
No just a prophecy contained in the bible that has evidence of being
completed. But hey you can always argue that the dude who wrote it down
just got lucky. Then if you take the 8 most common prophecies concerning
Jesus which are clearly met in the person of Jesus the odds against those
8 prophecies being all correct are rather high, but they are all 8 dead
on. So is it luck or is there someting to it.
You figure it out.
That's easy. When the NT was written, they had copies of the OT. So the
"prophecies" could easily be "filled" by writing the NT to suit.
Duh.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cindy Cindy@nospam" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 05:16:49 PM |
|
|
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2oo658Fcn9ebU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Scout Lady" <scoutlady@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:vUAVc.1857$IO1.61@trndny03...
This is going to be so fun to watch!
It sure is, I bet 5 to 2 that the little german school boy gets his *****
kicked! LOL
Cindy
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 02:06:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:37:18 -0600, "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
<...>
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example. We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
The Bible mentions several places that actually existed. How is that
any sort of argument for the existence of God (non-fallacious or
otherwise)?
K.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 12:06:20 AM |
|
|
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message news:41279c54.81388600@news.gvtc.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:37:18 -0600, "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
<...>
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
The Bible mentions several places that actually existed. How is that
any sort of argument for the existence of God (non-fallacious or
otherwise)?
A test mentioned in the bible itself is the accuracy of the prophecy. So how
accurate is the Babylon prophecy. The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
"help", or at least I'd think so.
K.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 12:19:39 AM |
|
|
In article <2oqnucFdgjvoU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
"help", or at least I'd think so.
Depends on how may would-be prophets there were.
With enough of them, it is almost certain that one of them will have got
lucky. And the ones that weren't tend to be forgot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "A-Theist" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 01:09:24 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B6DFC2.23193921082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <2oqnucFdgjvoU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
"help", or at least I'd think so.
Depends on how may would-be prophets there were.
With enough of them, it is almost certain that one of them will have got
lucky. And the ones that weren't tend to be forgot.
Ok predict your own birth. Who has ever done that?
Predict your own death and be accurate about it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 02:51:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:09:24 -0600, "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B6DFC2.23193921082004@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <2oqnucFdgjvoU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
"help", or at least I'd think so.
Depends on how may would-be prophets there were.
With enough of them, it is almost certain that one of them will have got
lucky. And the ones that weren't tend to be forgot.
Ok predict your own birth. Who has ever done that?
Are you proposing that as another non-fallacious argument for the
existence of God?
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
22 Aug 2004 02:37:49 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:06:20 -0600, "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message news:41279c54.81388600@news.gvtc.com...
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:37:18 -0600, "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:1XtVc.285$G7G.104@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2omo6pFc85ggU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
<...>
One case that is actually provable is prophecy. Take Babylon as example.
We
know where the city was and the condition it's in is how the prophecies
concerning it detail the situation.
The Bible mentions several places that actually existed. How is that
any sort of argument for the existence of God (non-fallacious or
otherwise)?
A test mentioned in the bible itself is the accuracy of the prophecy. So how
accurate is the Babylon prophecy. The prophet who is 100% accurate must have
"help", or at least I'd think so.
Did you know that there are a number of non-Christian religions which
also claim prophecy as proof of their truth?
Here are some obvious questions to ask about many of the Bible's so
called prophecies:
Did the prophecy actually take place--is it an accurate record of what
the supposed prophet actually said and when it was said?
It is any easy thing to reword older writings to shoehorn them to
fit later events, or to fabricate "prophecies" after the fact and
attribute them to older figures. The prophecies from Isaiah, for
example, become less impressive when we take into account that we have
none of the original documents, and in fact, the earliest manuscripts
we have date to long after the events "predicted". Even worse for
Isaiah is that many Biblical scholars have concluded that Isaiah was
the work of multiple authors.
Was the specific content of the prophecy remarkably improbable?
Predicting that a city in the desert will eventually fail and
become ruins, for example, isn't much more remarkable than predicting
that a particular person will eventually die. The prophecy needs to
have distinctive and unforeseeable particulars. And even coming up
with a fulfilled prediction that has distinctive particulars isn't all
that difficult if it is merely one of a large number of distinctive
predictions, most of which were never realized--so not only does a
successful prediction from a supposed prophet have to be recorded
accurately, *all* his predictions have to be recorded accurately so
that we can assess his hit rate.
Was the prophecy actually fulfilled?
Well, let's have a look at Isaiah 13:
19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees'
excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from
generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there;
neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses
shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and
satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate
houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to
come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
The anthropological consensus seems to be that Babylonia is part of
modern Iraq. And I notice that many people live there, and travel
there, and pitch tents, and even build buildings there. And the part
of the prophecy about satyrs and dragons certainly qualifies as highly
distinctive, but for some reason, I haven't seen any of those in the
footage coming out of Iraq.
And from Jeremiah 51:
37 And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an
astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.
Accurate?
and a bit later:
42 The sea is come up upon Babylon: she is covered with the
multitude of the waves thereof.
43 Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land
wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.
Which gets it wrong even with a present-tense description of Babylonia
back then.
Indeed, the Bible repeatedly gets past, present, and future wrong. It
opens with a creation myth, goes on to a demonstrably false flood
myth, recites a litany of generations (with discrepancies) leading to
Moses, for whom there is no evidence, who leads the Jews out of an
Egyptian captivity, for which there is no evidence, and together they
stay in the desert for decades without leaving a trace of ever having
been there.
And all of this is the lead-up to the arrival of a saviour god-man who
has unusual characteristics in common with previous magicians and
saviour god-men of the region, and who performs astonishing
wonders--which somehow didn't make it into any of the contemporary
chronicles of that time and place. All of the Jesus stories were
written decades after they supposedly took place, and there is no
independent corroboration that Bible Jesus existed at all. How hard
would it have been for the authors of the Jesus stories to fit them to
prior writings they had in hand? Which is more likely, that some
humans told some tall tales--which we know humans very often do--or
that the Creator of the universe came to a primitive province on this
tiny planet to tell us something, but so utterly failed to make any
impression that he lived and died without leaving a trace of his
existence other than some unconfirmed rumors and stories which just
happen to look like the typical myth stories that humans routinely
make up?
Now, you may believe that it requires extraordinary "help" to write a
storybook that is confused, conflicted, unsubstantiated, and in many
cases demonstrably false, but I don't see any rational basis for that
belief. I also have to wonder what it says about the character of
this supposed "help" that it would deliberately "help" us towards
falsehoods.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 02:09:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:46:16 -0600, "A-Theist"
<not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote:
"Epic" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:dAkVc.1826172$Ar.326812@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"A-Theist" <not.for.anyone@to.know.net> wrote in message
news:2olfi6FbqgruU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
<...>
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want an argument.
I am seeking knowledge through honest discussion but be prepared to defend
your claims.
I quite capable of defending my claims. But if you really want to know I'd like
your permission to send an email to take this off usenet I don't want to clutter
up the atheism group or the baptist one with what will likely be thousands of
posts from all comers.
Alt.atheism will have thousands of posts anyway, so you needn't worry
about imposing or causing clutter. At least this would be relatively
on topic.
But if you are primarily looking to avoid a mass critique of your
argument (presumably because you have little confidence that it can
withstand it) then yes, keeping it off usenet would probably be the
best way to avoid thats.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 05:31:01 PM |
|
|
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
They are every bit as fallacious as ethical arguments for moral progress,
Pro-choice, Pro-life, human rights, etc. In any argument for god's existence
replace it with "moral progress" and fallacies with arise. All of those,
including God, require a declaration of the faithful and fundamental
rejection of materialism. "Human rights are only a convenient fantasy" -
stoney.
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to prove
it's true. How's that for circular reasoning? Which is why materialism is a
premise and not a conclusion.
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Realityis" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 05:43:17 PM |
|
|
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:FYuVc.2705$QK6.788@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
They are every bit as fallacious as ethical arguments for moral progress,
Pro-choice, Pro-life, human rights, etc. In any argument for god's
existence
replace it with "moral progress" and fallacies with arise. All of those,
including God, require a declaration of the faithful and fundamental
rejection of materialism. "Human rights are only a convenient fantasy" -
stoney.
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to prove
it's true. How's that for circular reasoning? Which is why materialism is
a
premise and not a conclusion.
Scott
So I take your answer to be "No".
Realityis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
20 Aug 2004 06:39:03 PM |
|
|
"Realityis" <realityisspamoflauge@canada.com> wrote in message
news:98vVc.496$G7G.36@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"Scott" <scott@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:FYuVc.2705$QK6.788@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
"Realityis" <realityis@canada.com> wrote in message
news:516aeee7.0408191724.33b2ab4c@posting.google.com...
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
They are every bit as fallacious as ethical arguments for moral
progress,
Pro-choice, Pro-life, human rights, etc. In any argument for god's
existence
replace it with "moral progress" and fallacies with arise. All of those,
including God, require a declaration of the faithful and fundamental
rejection of materialism. "Human rights are only a convenient fantasy" -
stoney.
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
prove
it's true. How's that for circular reasoning? Which is why materialism
is
a
premise and not a conclusion.
Scott
So I take your answer to be "No".
Conditionally. "No" given the conditional *a priori* premise of materialism.
Now all you have to do is convince theists that materialism is true. But how
are you going to do that when you can't prove it is the true nature of
reality?
If materialism is true then moral progress is also a delusional fantasy.
Going from a society of slavery to one without is not progress but only a
change in preference, same holds for that of the Inquisition's to today's
Western democracies. Likewise, comparisons between cultures' morality will
not lend one as being preferable due to one of them being progressively
better. There is only a difference in preference. Without having that
rational bases for which materialism denies existence in, arguments for
moral preferences between cultures (and even individuals) is rationally
pointless. There is no bases for claims that human rights advocacies are
better than that of the Taliban's and Al Qada's morality. The is no rational
bases to argue Pro-Choice over Pro-Life or its inverse. There is no rational
bases to argue Liberal morality over Conservative morality. They are all
*equivalently* attempting to force their morality onto the other...but
that's ok if your moral code says you can be intolerant of the other's.
Without a rational bases to measure against, all moral codes are equivalent
and self justifying so there is no such thing as an unjust law. You can pass
a law to gas Jews if you want and the law will be self justifying. You
believe any of that or does that seem to go against your common sense, as if
against some gnosis? Humanistic materialism is an oxymoron.
It may be rational to have faith but nobody claims faith is rational.
Scott
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goddeloos" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 02:51:51 AM |
|
|
Scott wrote:
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
prove it's true. How's that for circular reasoning?
Science (materialism) can never be *proven* true.
Scientific theories only generate testable propositions.
Scientific theories can only be invalidated, or
rejected for better ones, never *proven* to be
correct in an absolute sense.
Science can use whatever assumptions it likes to
design theories which generate testable propositions.
So, as always, you assert you misunderstanding of the
nature of scientific epistemology.
--
goddeloos #179
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 09:43:13 AM |
|
|
"Goddeloos" <goddeloos-@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:raDVc.9230$Bt5.2715@twister.socal.rr.com...
Scott wrote:
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
prove it's true. How's that for circular reasoning?
Science (materialism) can never be *proven* true.
Oh!! And all this time in another thread you've been arguing for objective
morality?
Scientific theories only generate testable propositions.
Scientific theories can only be invalidated, or
rejected for better ones, never *proven* to be
correct in an absolute sense.
Science can use whatever assumptions it likes to
design theories which generate testable propositions.
So what to all of that?
So, as always, you assert you misunderstanding of the
nature of scientific epistemology.
And once again, you have shown yourself to be philosophically challenged.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem gets in the way for proof of materialism.
Jeff, I'm getting to the point that I don't read much of your posts anymore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
21 Aug 2004 02:58:17 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 07:51:51 GMT in alt.atheism, Goddeloos
<goddeloos-@san.rr.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet
stall:
Scott wrote:
Materialism is true because materialism uses materialistic means to
prove it's true. How's that for circular reasoning?
Science (materialism) can never be *proven* true.
I think you might mean "Science (empiricism) [...]". It's not quite the same
thing as "Science (materialism) [...]". Even science admits to
non-materialistic possibilities, just not to non-empirical ones. Or have I
misunderstood the context or some such of the above?
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostle" |
|
| Title: Re: Are all arguments for God's existence fallacious? |
19 Aug 2004 08:46:54 PM |
|
|
"Realityis" wrote in message
Are there any arguments for the existence of God that are not
fallacious?
Any arguement that tries to prove the existence of God, has to be
fallacious.
Fallacy - Any reasoning contrary to logic.
Now, consider. You have a creator God, who amoung his other creations, makes
mankind.
He gives them the ability to reason, because they are made in his own image.
But God himself, is all powerful, so having the gift of prophecy, he knows
when he makes mankind, that man will sin, get thrown out of the Garden of
Eden.
But God goes ahead and makes mankind.
Mankind gets so bad, that God decides to get rid of all the evil people.
Thus he makes a flood. But he saves Noah and his family.
Again, having the gift of prophecy, he already knows that it won't work.
Now years later, mankind has again started to sin, and this time God decides
to save them.
How, he decides to sacrifice his only begotten son.
But God has already told us in a number of places, that sacrificing a son or
daughter is an abomination to him.
Now religionists come up with the theory, that God became flesh and came to
earth, as God the son, and was crucified to save mankind.
So, God screwed up in his creating man, knew it before hand, and decides
that in order to save mankind, he should sacrifice himself, to himself
because he messed up.
Is there any logic at all in that?
Fallacy - Any reasoning contrary to Logic.
Can any religionist, explain how The Jewish God exists, along with his son
Jesus, but Zeus, Attis, Isis, Ra, Inanna, Cybele, Mithras, etc. don't
exist!!!!!
Fallacy - Any reasoning contrary to Logic.
Can any religionist explain, how every civilization known to man, has had a
God(s) and/or Goddess(es), a set of moral laws, etc. But only one is the
true God??
Fallacy - Oh, you should get the idea by now.
.
|
|
|
|
