dark_angel said:
ok you're trying ur formality shit on me arent u? hahaha ok then
If it is in your opinion that god does not exist, simply because we do not have any tangible evidence to prove this otherwise, then why are you questioning an aspect that has obvious subjective connotations, ie the answer lies in the mind of the believer, as there is no real fruit or positive bearing that can be obtained by asking the question "does god exist?" which as i said is dynamic.
No the answer is not in the mind of the believer. It is either true or false.
dark_angel said:
Furthurmore, if god were to exist and god were perfect, and humanity knew of gods existence, then god would not be perfect, because he would have laid eyes upon something that was not perfect (ie humanity) and hence god cannot exist if humanity knew of his existence.
Okay that makes
no sense. If God were to "lay eyes on something imperfect" he would not exist? How can God cease to exist simply because humanity knows of his existence?!
dark_angel said:
The last bit is obvious bullshit like the one u pulled off earlier
Kindly refer to what you're talking about.
dark_angel said:
but ive done philosophy and the error is obvious, it lies within the first statement, i cant remember the proper word..ah shit oh well but there are literally hundreds of arguements like the one u have mentioned that try to prove that god both exists and doesnt exist.
In other words, I've made an obvious error which you can't identify. Fantastic. Incidentally the error you are most likely referring to is that of the
excluded middle. But I am not trying to prove that God both does not exist and does exist. I am saying that we lack evidence either way, and therefore it is not a valid position to hold to believe either, though the more rational approach out of believing and not believing would be not to believe (burden of proof).
dark_angel said:
so dont try any of that crap....lol
Well when you can't actually refute anything I say, go on about how you've done philosophy, you can't actually identify any of my errors, and perpetualy call it "crap," I'm not shaken
[Incidentally if you want to have a credentials boast, I have also done philosophy, 2 years worth at university level, at both USYD and UNSW, attaining 3 distinctions.]
---------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by MoonlightSonata:
Really? Try this on for size:
1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.
4. But the universe is not perfect.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
Of course this argument has flaws (though you didn't pick them up) but the whole point of this example is that there are arguments which go to proving that God does not exist - so to shut yourself out by saying we cannot prove God does not exist, well there may be strong arguments as to why.
dark_angel said:
1. yes as i said, u dont know that god is perfect, if u do then i would like to know y, or better yet prove it and that is the end of 80 pages of posts.
I was under the impression Christians thought God was perfect. They don't think that? Good, that explains a lot <looks around at the world>.
dark_angel said:
2. how do u know he created the universe. (i beleive he did but u dont know do u)
Again this is part of the definitions of God!
dark_angel said:
3. hmmm this one ive read an anti-arguement to before, but i cant remember, ur lucky i have a bad memory otherwise i would've owned u on this point
Translation: I don't have anything valuable to say here.
dark_angel said:
4. how do u know, it may be a perfect balance, i suggest u read up on quantum mechanics
I suppose people getting killed and maimed and raped and tortured... that's not imperfect at all is it?
dark_angel said:
I tried it on for size, it didnt fit because it had holes, but if an arguement has holes it is not an arguement but a hidden bias
Holes, as I've discussed, you fail to make out.
dark_angel said:
SO KEEPING IN MIND THAT I AM ONLY 17 YEARS OLD AND THAT YOU ARE A UNIVERSITY STUDENT, GIMME SOME EVIDENCE TO REJECT MY ARGUEMENT OR IF U CANT I THINK I JUST OWNED UR ENTIRE THREAD
You're only 17? Oh sorry - that must explain your maturity, I'll keep that in mind. As for you "owning the entire thread," (a) the point of this thread is not to "own" each other or the thread, (b) what is your argument? I'll gladly pull it apart for you.
dark_angel said:
Some one try and answer my question properly without any bullshit please, its a matter of epistemology in my opinion.
I hardly think the reasoning I have posted throughout here is "bullshit." You said you've done some philosophy right? Then you should know that is one of the worst fallacies of argument.