Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.
That's a start.
The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').
God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.
He clearly said that he does not. He just sees no reason to believe in them. So what you just said is false. Please correct, thanks.You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis
The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational to not have faith.Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!
* in your particular, preferred brand of iron age magic. Be clear, ding.The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational to not have faith.
.And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.
That's a start.
The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').
God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.
I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists
Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.
The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
I couldn’t be more clear. Let’s look at this from the perspective of natural selection. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. According to natural selection anything which does not provide a functional advantage gets discarded.* in your particular, preferred brand of iron age magic. Be clear, ding.The benefits of faith are so overwhelming that it is irrational to not have faith.
Basic rule of GRAMMAR.This was just a debate i have never seen take place. Frankly, i think its a darn good one too. LolThe elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
Are we still trying to explain things we don't understand? Like, we haven't moved on much?
"Their" Gods? How many Gods are there?
Or maybe there aren't any.
Why are we so fixated on Him?
He clearly said that he does not. He just sees no reason to believe in them. So what you just said is false. Please correct, thanks.You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis
I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.
That's a start.
The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').
God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.
I merely havent been presented with good rationale to believe in one.
Theres a stark difference between a positive claim, that there is or is not a god, and a mere lack of belief, which makes no claim and thus no faith is required. Thats logic 101.
theres no way to tell no way to prove what or why god did or didnt if he exists or is is only in peoples mind.The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
You can't say that the reasoning for your belief is the "lack of sufficient evidence"...Lack of belief is not a faith claim.
Belief something is, or is not, absent sufficient evidence, is a faith claim.
Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!
Thats incorrect.I dont reject deities...so no faith is necessary.And I DO believe in a deity. I've had experiences in my life which have led to the strengthening of that belief. I accept on a faith basis that the Christian God exists; You, in a likewise manner, reject deities on a faith basis. You can't prove that there are indeed none, and I can't prove that there indeed IS one (or several). It's a belief based on faith. That's what it comes down to.I think that's the most reasonable current-day conclusion. I haven't seen any compelling evidence for a deity, so I go on as though the proposition isn't very interesting...or, no more interesting than what the Pastafarians believe.Correct. You also seem fairly familiar with logic.I would lean toward this being one of the bad arguments against a deity, because it could be addressed in several ways...
1. It's an argument from ignorance fallacy - "we can't think of any other reason stars would die, if it weren't due to error or imperfection., therefore, they're designed imperfectly" = a.f.i. fallacy.
2. It's a categorical error - you're equivocating death with imperfection without knowledge of any intended goal of a star.
3. Their appeal to "god works in mysterious ways" is annoying, but works to address the claim of contradiction and exacerbates that it's an argument from ignorance Ala point 1.
That's a start.
The issue with the OP's post right from the start is that it is impossible to prove/disprove God, as attempting to do so leads to fallacies such as the argument from ignorance (as you pointed out) and the circular argument fallacy (in other words, trying to prove circular reasoning, which is typically referred to as 'fundamentalism').
God can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.
I merely havent been presented with good rationale to believe in one.
Theres a stark difference between a positive claim, that there is or is not a god, and a mere lack of belief, which makes no claim and thus no faith is required. Thats logic 101.
Ahhhh, okay. I might have misunderstood you then. Maybe you are actually indifferent to the existence or non-existence of deities? (Not believing either way?) That would be an agnostic, which doesn't make use of faith and is not a religion of any sort. It instead answers the question with "I don't believe either way" (in other words, "I don't accept either argument as a truth", or "I don't know"). Hopefully I gotcha now.
But do be careful with the "I haven't been presented with good rationale" (and similar) language, as that's getting into a subtle Argument From Ignorance fallacy, and is likely the reason why I felt like you were saying that you believe that gods don't exist.
By claiming that you don't believe that god(s) exist because you haven't been presented with good rationale to believe in their existence, you are subtly committing the argument from ignorance fallacy because you MIGHT have already been presented with good evidence of existence, but are simply ignorant of it. Lack of evidence is not a proof.
Also, you don't have a "lack of belief", since claiming that you "lack belief" in something IS, in and of ITSELF, a belief. Belief is best defined as "the acceptance of an argument as a true" (regardless of whether it is actually true or not).
Theists, Atheists, AND Agnostics ALL hold a particular belief. Theists believe that god(s) exist. Atheists believe that god(s) do not exist. Agnostics believe that human reason is insufficient to determine either way (in other words, they answer the question with "I don't know").
So, maybe you are actually an agnostic, but when you've (twice now, this comment and the prior comment) committed that same subtle argument from ignorance fallacy, it seems like you are instead believing that god(s) don't exist (based on "lack of evidence for existence") rather than believing that human reason is insufficient to determine either way.
That's, I think, where my confusion about your position on the topic is coming from...
Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk
Youre misusing an argument from ignorance.You can't say that the reasoning for your belief is the "lack of sufficient evidence"...Lack of belief is not a faith claim.
Belief something is, or is not, absent sufficient evidence, is a faith claim.
That commits the (subtle, but still there) Argument From Ignorance Fallacy that I mentioned in the other comment. It is asserting that there is a lack of evidence for or against, and "lack of evidence" is not a proof.
Belief for or against the existence of god(s) need not be justified in any way. Trying to justify that belief leads one into these types of fallacies...
Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk
Everything is perfectly following all laws.The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?
Fascinating. So, which law determined there should be more matter than antimatter in our universe?Everything is perfectly following all laws.
He argued that the benefits of belief is so superior that it was irrational not to believe.Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy.Pascal's Dilemma is the answer!
Pascal argued that unbelievers shouldn't risk eternal damnation in hell, and that they would instead be smarter to "take action", to believe in God. Basically, it predicts that something bad will happen if we do not take action.
The problem with that is that maybe there is NO "eternal damnation" at all. Maybe NOTHING bad will happen if no action is taken...
Sent from my SM-G930VL using Tapatalk
