Does God exist? (2 Viewers)

[Enteebee]

for sure, but in the end isn't this often the most you'll usually get to convince someone of your position?

 

[Slidey]

What is truth?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

 

[maccasjunkie]

haha thats so random lol

 

[theism]

this thread is really old.

im ppretty sure most of the posters of the front end of this topic are no longer active.


so.

ask me something about why you can't believe there is a God,

and i will try and answer them form a theist prospective.

ie. if God loves us, why does he condemn them to hell?

 

[Enteebee]

ask me something about why you can't believe there is a God,

Why can't you believe there's a flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Enteebee]

It depends on what your definition of is, is.

 

[hsb39]

Why can't you believe there's a flying spaghetti monster?

There's an easier and better way of saying that. Arguing that "there must be a God because you can't prove it wrong" or saying "why can't you believe in a God?" is know as appealing to ignorance, it is a falicy.

I don't believe in a God simply because I see no reason to believe in one, I believe that many Atheists share my position. I have not seen any strong arguments for (and not many against) the existence of a God, and assuming something like it seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Graustein]

ask me something about why you can't believe there is a God,

and i will try and answer them form a theist prospective.

ie. if God loves us, why does he condemn them to hell?

If there is a God, how do you know it's your God? How do you know there's only one? How do you know the bible or the koran or the torah are true and not some other holy text? What is it that makes your theories about God any more or less valid than anyone else's? Can you in fact support the existance of God, specifically YOUR God as opposed to anyone else's? Without reverting to circular logic?

My question is not about whether or not God exists. I consider that question moot and irrelevant. My question is about why people are so convinced that their religion is the right one, the only right one. On what basis do people make this claim?

Edit: Apologies for sounding aggressive and confrontational there. Didn't mean to. But I'd still like a genuine answer to my question. I asked a Muslim this question, albeit not in so many words, and he completely skirted the issue by going off on some tangent. Please do not do this.

 

[KFunk]

It depends on what your definition of is, is.

You're not left with much (/anything) if you don't have the verb 'to be'.

 

[Enteebee]

There's an easier and better way of saying that. Arguing that "there must be a God because you can't prove it wrong" or saying "why can't you believe in a God?" is know as appealing to ignorance, it is a falicy.

Lots of things are fallacies. Saying something is a fallacy therefore it's wrong is an appeal to authority - My point is to show that there is a contradiction in their beliefs, not to claim that I myself can prove that there either is or is not a god. I cannot. All I can do is show that their own rules by which they choose to believe/not believe in things are being broken by their belief in X.

 

[BradCube]

A somewhat biased summary of the Lennox v Shermer debate. Dan tells me it's rather accurate:

http://mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2008/08/24/362.aspx

That summary makes me sad I was hoping to get a real look at the arguments put forward - alas, back to my reading and podcasts.

 

[hsb39]

Lots of things are fallacies. Saying something is a fallacy therefore it's wrong is an appeal to authority - My point is to show that there is a contradiction in their beliefs, not to claim that I myself can prove that there either is or is not a god. I cannot. All I can do is show that their own rules by which they choose to believe/not believe in things are being broken by their belief in X.

A fallacy is a flaw in an argument, and saying that something is a fallacy is pointing out a flaw in an argument, and is in no way appealing to authority. Appealing to authority is using a part of your argument as who's argument it is, if that makes sense. I was just saying that the "spaggetti monster" can be said in a simpler, better way. Your point was pointing out the fallacy.

Strange that we argue so much when we have the same view on the subject...

 

[Slidey]

Hahaha, I remember when you made the comment that using the Wikipedia list of logical fallacies was an appeal to authority.

Hahaha, I remember when you ordered a Russian mail order bride.

 

[Enteebee]

A fallacy is a flaw in an argument, and saying that something is a fallacy is pointing out a flaw in an argument, and is in no way appealing to authority. Appealing to authority is using a part of your argument as who's argument it is, if that makes sense. I was just saying that the "spaggetti monster" can be said in a simpler, better way. Your point was pointing out the fallacy.

Strange that we argue so much when we have the same view on the subject...

The logical fallacies work fine if you're writing a computer program but we often have a need to come to knowledge in ways which are perhaps less than perfectly logical. If I were to require the strictest of evidence and adherence to logic then I could be nothing more than a complete agnostic about everything (perhaps when thinking logically I am). But I do believe things. If thoroughly critically examined about my beliefs I would have to accept that I have no fundamental basis for believing many things that I do, but I do believe, as much as anyone could say "belief" has ever entailed.

Therefore we need to set up the axioms someone's playing with and work within their rules when trying to show them their flaw.

 

[Enteebee]

Surely not. When they set up axioms like "everything must have a creator, the only exception to this is a god, who has always existed," there is nothing you can say. The axioms themselves are so badly flawed they provide no grounds for reasonable discussion.

Well sure if they want to set this up then they can go ahead and do so... In the end I don't think I can prove them wrong, though I can say 'do you accept X? Do you accept Y?' and then attempt to show how they might be wrong granted these other axioms they have. For example what you seem to have a problem with there is special pleading. I might ask if then for example they would accept special pleading in another situation, then why/whynot... chances are imo I'll get something to work with, in the end we're all human beings operating in the real world.

 

[Slidey]

Surely not. When they set up axioms like "everything must have a creator, the only exception to this is a god, who has always existed," there is nothing you can say. The axioms themselves are so badly flawed they provide no grounds for reasonable discussion.

Um no - it's exactly the flawed nature of the axioms chosen which allows NTB to enlighten people to the irrationality of their beliefs through the Socratic method.

 

[Enteebee]

Yeah exactly. In the end my point is just I don't think I can just prescribe to people what axioms they should accept... If someone doesn't accept one of my own and it leads them to X conclusion then I can't say they're necessarily wrong, though if I find an inconsistency then I'll explore that.

 

[Kwayera]

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

<3 101 Atheist Quotes.

 

[Enteebee]

Why should I accept the particular fallacy he mentioned which basically states that just because I don't know something is true doesn't mean it isn't... Therefore I can't state X is False. It might be false, I just don't know.

As an example I'm willing to state that there are no leprechauns. Logically following this rule, just because I've had no evidence presented to me to prove that there are leprechauns does not mean that there are none. But tbh, I'm willing to accept that while I don't know 'for certain' I know as well as is good enough to satisfy me. So I've set up rules for the game I have to play for accepting that something does/doesn't exist, if I break or are inconsistent in one of these rules then I think you can pull me up.

 

[Enteebee]

That's the argument I was addressing.

And I pwnd you.

n00b.

If you can't give reasons for why I should accept his fallacy then I'm left to presume he was just appealing to the authority of 'fallacies'.

You can't do X

Why can't I do X?

Because it's a fallacy.

But... why should I accept that? The fallacy negates my theory of knowledge.

Because it's a fallacy.

I'd call that appealing to authority but it might be something else... seems basically right.