The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: cut to the chase...

Re: cut to the chase...
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Sunday, December 4 2011, 16:47:54 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
> >>The point is: “let's narrow down the argument”.
>>
>>...a silly argument, even if narrowed down, is still silly.
>
>Silly or not, that's not the point... If we want to argue the existence of God then let's go back to the post about Aquinas and the First Cause and provide argumentative refutations as opposed to mere contradictions, sarcasms, “ho hum”, “Aquinas is a circus barker”, “bad analogy”, “swiss cheese”...etc.

...I already said I never believed in a god...all of it is nonsense..and Aquinas is merely a wise fool. There are lots of those. I think Jefferson that in the US there would be no such thing as a college degree in "Theology"....that's like a degree in Voodoo.
>
>Saying it's silly and then leaving it at that is not an argument.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

...there is no argument. Would you argue with someone who said the world was flat?
>
> For both the Bunny and god you have no evidence, no proof
>
>When you say “proof”, you mean a priori or a posteriori? Does the possibility of an uncaused instigator sound more illogical than its alternative:


...there you go again. No proof PERIOD! If in the next breath you say, "oh yeah, then how do you explain the sky"? My response is that I don't try to explain the sky...the sky is there, I don;t have to explain it, I'd just like to keep it blue and clean. And you can't explain it, or god, either. You think you've explained things but you start out BELIEVING them to begin with. You already believe there is a god, therefore your questions are loaded, as are your proofs...a scientist doesn't go looking for the evidence that will prove his point....a scientist has no point to prove..he's just LOOKING...and he'll take whatever comes.

Aquinas starts out by saying "we know a god exists"...and then he thinks to prove it. That is silly!

...

infinite regression? I am not asking for blind faith but at least let's not adamantly negate a hypothesis purely on the bases of lack of evidence. We do not have proofs for the existence of parallel universes or extraterrestrial life but scientists do postulate and discuss them.

...yes but they have never killed anyone for not believing. Anyone who looks out to the night time sky would be foolish to not admit the almost certainty that life must exist on other planets...but to begin describing and explaining that life is the work of a fool...as foolish as claiming god only made life on THIS planet.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/26/stephen-hawking-issues-warning-on-aliens
>
> you and Aquinas may think you have proven the case for the existence of god ...but you haven't
>
>No one has ever thought that. I find the idea of unequivocally proving the existence of God to be paradoxical to the very notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God.

...I find even thinking there is a Judeo-Christian God who has children and demands human sacrifice silly...by the way, which god do you believe exists? Thor...Isis....Zeus? Let's establish that first.

In my opinion: IF God exists then we are under his control, and therefore

...then how do you explain that I am NOT in his control? I'll tell you how...by saying that whether I know it or not, he is in control...I ask you, how can you have an intelligent discussion with someone who is going to tell what YOU should think?


we can prove his existence ONLY if HE wants us to prove it. It follows that: IF we proved God's existence AGAINST his will, then in this case he wouldn't be God.

...how do you know we can only prove his existence if he wants us to? And by the way, you are using the word "proof" again....you want to watch that.
>
> but you start out saying you BELIEVE, and on no evidence.
>
>When? When? When? When did I, or the author I quoted, start out by saying “I BELIEVE”? When did I ever begin an argument by saying: “GIVEN that God exists....”?

...you said earlier that you believe it...glad to hear you don't. Then why do you make claims about something you DON'T believe? Is this not sophistry?
>
> let's stick to what people do when they BELIEVE in a god. You said or implied that when people think god is watching, they behave better...I see no evidence of that...maybe the opposite.
>
>Okay then, next time we'll pick up from here: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/wwwboard/msgs/Re_Don_t_we_need_religion-FPsy.html


...okay



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9