Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5489
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#136

Post by Jac3510 » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:35 pm

Audie, asking the question the way you did, in the context you did, as a defense as to why you couldn't answer a simple request for information, yes, that absolutely is an assumption on your part. And if it truly wasn't, then perhaps you will be self-aware and curious enough to consider why it is that you've come across that way.

You said you didn't intend your comments to be an attack, and I don't take them as such. I take them as honest communication. I hope you don't take my refusal to discuss YEC or the comso argument or evolution or anything else of substance as an attack either. By way of explanation, for you and for the group, as for why I'm YEC, perhaps we could have an interesting discussion about it, but frankly, I'm not interested. When you reduce necessarily logical conclusion to being "clever," you attack the use of reason itself. That may not be what you intend, but it is my assessment. It is, you might say, the clever conclusion I am forced to draw. And as I said to you before, since you like to attack people for having kites in sewers, then you won't flinch when I say, again, that if your ideas leave you attacking reason itself, then perhaps we can talk about when you get your kite out of the sewer.

I hold the positions I do because the only thing that matters to me is truth, because I prize intellectual honesty over pretty much anything else. You have no idea how that plays out on an issue by issue basis with reference to YEC and the age of the earth and evolution and other such matters because all you do is boring lines about kites and sewers, and refuse to engage in conversation, all while highlighting your disinterest in reason by continuing and even gloating in being irrational about it (that's what a genetic fallacy is).

What, then, is the point in having a rational conversation about how I reach the conclusions I do when you've already stated that rational argument is merely being "clever" and that any conclusions I draw are tainted anyway? It is literally a waste of my time. And yours. So, no, I won't play that game with you.

Again, my disappointment is real. I don't say any of the above lightly and take no joy in this. I post on these boards because I enjoy discussing these things, and it's a rare thing to find someone who so fundamentally disagrees with me to be able to explore these deep ideas. So I mean it when I say I'm disappointed. I consider it a personal loss. But it's where we are, and there's nothing else to say. I still enjoy your presence in the community, and perhaps things can change eventually. Perhaps they won't and we'll have nothing more than playful banter from time to time. There's a place for that, too, and it gives me real pleasure. Despite my deep frustration with your comments and attitude you've taken towards me, I do like you. So I hope you'll stick around. But, no, respectfully, I simply don't see any positive outcome for discussing scientific, philosophical, or theological subjects.

y@};-

edit: And no offense taken on the YEC, comments, K. I know you don't think Scripture teaches YEC, and that you're no less interested in honestly discovering truth than I am. For the record, I hold no beliefs on the age of the earth, evolution, or other such scientific matters, other than this: I believe that the vast majority of scientists, having studied their fields, have concluded that the earth is about 4 billion years old, the universe 14 billion, that the Standard Model is more right than not, that we all share a common ancestor, etc. I have no beliefs on whether their beliefs are true or false. I simply am not qualified to make such claims. That may sound like a way to duck the question, but it isn't. It is a perfectly and completely honest statement. I do not give assent to their beliefs on the basis of their authority simply because the authority I do understand seems to be in conflict with theirs. And then there are people who share their authority who claim that the standard scientific views are unwarranted. Again, I have no beliefs as to whether or not these other scientists are correct or not. I know both sides believe they are right and both sides believe the others are doing their science wrong. And, again, I am not in a position to referee that debate. I am very careful not to say, "I believe the earth is 10,000 years old." I do NOT believe that. I believe the Bible teaches that, more or less. I believe that I am a fallible interpreter of Scripture. I believe that there may be aspects of the genres in question that I don't fully appreciate. So I don't have nearly enough information to make any claims on the age of the earth or on evolution or to referee the debate between those who do. If Audie wants to say my kite is in the sewer and I'm just being clever, then there's no reason for she and I to discuss anything of any rational substance, is there? Perhaps she could answer my question about Marvel v DC. That might be fun . . .
These users liked this post by Jac3510 (total 2):
Philip (Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:29 pm) • Kurieuo (Sun Oct 09, 2016 7:37 pm)
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#137

Post by Audie » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:41 pm

Thanks jac..I only skimmed over your post, but I liked what I saw.


Im way tired and have a big day tomorrow.

I will try to respond adequately, I' ve been writing in half distracted haste.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#138

Post by B. W. » Mon Oct 10, 2016 9:47 am

Audie wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Audie wrote:
B. W. wrote:Audie did you not know you used evasive statements in your post?

:wave:
Prease explain
Audie, Jac provided the explanation....
Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:Asked why, I said I dont accept premises.
Asked what are the premises, I thought cosmos knew
their premises, I didnt write them out.

You want me to list premises that you know by heart? Why?
If I identify one, am I then to justify it, playing in your court?
I'd ask you not to make such assumptions about me. You should know all about that. You said you didn't accept the premises. My assumption was that there are some that you accept (e.g., that some things are in motion) and some that you don't. I don't know what those assumptions you don't accept are, so I asked.

I had no interest in pressing the matter with you. I might have wanted to know why you rejected or didn't assume any particular premise, but the idea of debating the CA with you is about as interesting to me as giving a crocodile a root canal. But as someone who is interested in the CA and how it is perceived by those who haven't studied it, I was (again, emphasizing was) interested in your perception of it.

It's the same reason I read news from liberal media outlets that I tend to disagree with. I want to know their perspective. I was curious in yours. And you couldn't even provide that. Instead, you ask if I'm going to ask you to justify it and play in "my" court.

Get over yourself. For someone who doesn't take too kindly to bullying, you do a lot of it yourself. And it's frankly depressing, because you show the sparks of intellectual honesty, and I feel like I could actually learn something from discussing these things with you. And then you go pull stunts like this. It's disheartening and shameful. I may as well waste my time arguing with ACB.
You'd have to show this poor esl student wherein my response matches anything in the dictionary about "evasion".
Here you go...
Evasion
As quted and defined from Dictionary.com
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
an act or instance of escaping, avoiding, or shirking something:

2.
the avoiding of an argument, accusation, question, or the like, as by a subterfuge:
The old political boss was notorious for his practice of evasion.

3.
a means of evading; subterfuge; an excuse or trick to avoid or get around something:
Her polite agreement was an evasion concealing what she really felt.

4.
physical or mental escape.
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#139

Post by Audie » Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:04 pm

B. W. wrote:
Audie wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Audie wrote:
B. W. wrote:Audie did you not know you used evasive statements in your post?

:wave:
Prease explain
Audie, Jac provided the explanation....
Jac3510 wrote:
Audie wrote:Asked why, I said I dont accept premises.
Asked what are the premises, I thought cosmos knew
their premises, I didnt write them out.

You want me to list premises that you know by heart? Why?
If I identify one, am I then to justify it, playing in your court?
I'd ask you not to make such assumptions about me. You should know all about that. You said you didn't accept the premises. My assumption was that there are some that you accept (e.g., that some things are in motion) and some that you don't. I don't know what those assumptions you don't accept are, so I asked.

I had no interest in pressing the matter with you. I might have wanted to know why you rejected or didn't assume any particular premise, but the idea of debating the CA with you is about as interesting to me as giving a crocodile a root canal. But as someone who is interested in the CA and how it is perceived by those who haven't studied it, I was (again, emphasizing was) interested in your perception of it.

It's the same reason I read news from liberal media outlets that I tend to disagree with. I want to know their perspective. I was curious in yours. And you couldn't even provide that. Instead, you ask if I'm going to ask you to justify it and play in "my" court.

Get over yourself. For someone who doesn't take too kindly to bullying, you do a lot of it yourself. And it's frankly depressing, because you show the sparks of intellectual honesty, and I feel like I could actually learn something from discussing these things with you. And then you go pull stunts like this. It's disheartening and shameful. I may as well waste my time arguing with ACB.
You'd have to show this poor esl student wherein my response matches anything in the dictionary about "evasion".
Here you go...
Evasion
As quted and defined from Dictionary.com
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
an act or instance of escaping, avoiding, or shirking something:

2.
the avoiding of an argument, accusation, question, or the like, as by a subterfuge:
The old political boss was notorious for his practice of evasion.

3.
a means of evading; subterfuge; an excuse or trick to avoid or get around something:
Her polite agreement was an evasion concealing what she really felt.

4.
physical or mental escape.
-
-
-
I asked for a match

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#140

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:53 am

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:One of the biggest issues we have is when we try to FORCE an explanation.
I agree.
PaulSacramento wrote:Occam's razor.

Is it more logical to think that something acted upon something else so as to cause it to change or that what had always been that way, suddenly stopped being that way and changed?
Kennys Razor
It is better to admit you don't have an answer when you don't. Far more damage has been done from a wrong answer than no answer at all.

Ken

You do understand the difference between philosophy and science, right?
This goes back to the very core of Ken's disbelief, his lack of understanding of what God is.

You seem to be doing some pretty impressive mental and deductive acrobatics to avoid the simple and rational and reasonable deduction that everything that comes into being, everything that moves/changes. does so because acted upon/ cause by something else. Even though that is an empirical fact.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#141

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Oct 11, 2016 6:58 am

Here is a concept unstated, to my knowledge, in any version of cosmo:

That human beings have the capacity to use logic to arrive
at meaningful conclusions about the most basic nature of reality.

I dont accept that.

Logic needs material to work with. Cosmos like conclusions
involving or working with time, as if they knew what time is.

Are you guys working from a belief that you know enough about the
true nature of time to be coming up with proofs concerning the nature of reality,
using logic spun off from that belief?

I dont accept that either.
Since you state, explicitly, that you do not accept
"That human beings have the capacity to use logic to arrive
at meaningful conclusions about the most basic nature of reality.
You're lack of acceptance must, be default since it is not driven by logic, be an emotional one.

You're argument either refutes itself, since it is not based on logic OR it is an emotional one NOT grounded on reason.
Like some many arguments by skeptics, it IS an emotional one and not grounded on reason.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#142

Post by Kenny » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:28 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:One of the biggest issues we have is when we try to FORCE an explanation.
I agree.
PaulSacramento wrote:Occam's razor.

Is it more logical to think that something acted upon something else so as to cause it to change or that what had always been that way, suddenly stopped being that way and changed?
Kennys Razor
It is better to admit you don't have an answer when you don't. Far more damage has been done from a wrong answer than no answer at all.

Ken

You do understand the difference between philosophy and science, right?
This goes back to the very core of Ken's disbelief, his lack of understanding of what God is.

You seem to be doing some pretty impressive mental and deductive acrobatics to avoid the simple and rational and reasonable deduction that everything that comes into being, everything that moves/changes. does so because acted upon/ cause by something else. Even though that is an empirical fact.
I suspect you're making a bit of a "leap" yourself by suggesting everything came into being except your idea of God.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#143

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:46 am

I suspect you're making a bit of a "leap" yourself by suggesting everything came into being except your idea of God.

Ken
Possibly, but what do YOU think my idea of God is?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#144

Post by Kenny » Tue Oct 11, 2016 1:10 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:
I suspect you're making a bit of a "leap" yourself by suggesting everything came into being except your idea of God.

Ken
Possibly, but what do YOU think my idea of God is?
The God of Christianity.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#145

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Oct 12, 2016 4:38 am

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
I suspect you're making a bit of a "leap" yourself by suggesting everything came into being except your idea of God.

Ken
Possibly, but what do YOU think my idea of God is?
The God of Christianity.

Ken
And who and what is that?
I am honestly asking Ken, who and what do you think MY idea of God is?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 74 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#146

Post by Kenny » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:31 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
I suspect you're making a bit of a "leap" yourself by suggesting everything came into being except your idea of God.

Ken
Possibly, but what do YOU think my idea of God is?
The God of Christianity.

Ken
And who and what is that?
I am honestly asking Ken, who and what do you think MY idea of God is?
Creator of the Universe; all that exists, the person who will judge who goes to Heaven, & Hell after death, the God of the bible. If this doesn't answer your question, perhaps you can describe the type of answer you are looking for

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#147

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Oct 12, 2016 5:43 am

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
I suspect you're making a bit of a "leap" yourself by suggesting everything came into being except your idea of God.

Ken
Possibly, but what do YOU think my idea of God is?
The God of Christianity.

Ken
And who and what is that?
I am honestly asking Ken, who and what do you think MY idea of God is?
Creator of the Universe; all that exists, the person who will judge who goes to Heaven, & Hell after death, the God of the bible. If this doesn't answer your question, perhaps you can describe the type of answer you are looking for

Ken
That isn't really what we are talking about on THIS thread though.

You commented that I myself was making a leap by suggesting that everything came into being except my idea of God and that is a fair statement to make.
Except that, I didn't suggest that.
I suggest that everything that comes into being (not everything) has a cause, everything that is moved, has a mover and that, since we can't have infinite regression, we MUST logically and reasonably arrive at something that is UNCAUSED and UNMOVING or at LEAST, the FIRST Cause and FIRST mover.
And that something must be God because of who God is defined and because of how He MUST be if He IS God.
You understand this part, yes?

Audie
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3502
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:41 am
Christian: No
Sex: Female
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: USA
Has liked: 164 times
Been liked: 113 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#148

Post by Audie » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:06 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Here is a concept unstated, to my knowledge, in any version of cosmo:

That human beings have the capacity to use logic to arrive
at meaningful conclusions about the most basic nature of reality.

I dont accept that.

Logic needs material to work with. Cosmos like conclusions
involving or working with time, as if they knew what time is.

Are you guys working from a belief that you know enough about the
true nature of time to be coming up with proofs concerning the nature of reality,
using logic spun off from that belief?

I dont accept that either.
Since you state, explicitly, that you do not accept
"That human beings have the capacity to use logic to arrive
at meaningful conclusions about the most basic nature of reality.
You're lack of acceptance must, be default since it is not driven by logic, be an emotional one.

You're argument either refutes itself, since it is not based on logic OR it is an emotional one NOT grounded on reason.
Like some many arguments by skeptics, it IS an emotional one and not grounded on reason.

So you are satisfied that Logic needs no material to work with, and that you understand what time is.

I am of course charmed by your stereotyping.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9203
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 347 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#149

Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:11 am

I am of course charmed by your stereotyping.
If the "'self-refuting" shoe fits...

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8472
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 403 times
Been liked: 644 times

Re: Most/Least Powerful Arguments for God

#150

Post by Philip » Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:49 am

Audie: Here is a concept unstated, to my knowledge, in any version of cosmo:

That human beings have the capacity to use logic to arrive
at meaningful conclusions about the most basic nature of reality.

I dont accept that.
And you don't accept that because... what? Because you don't FEEL it to be true? Do not WANT it to be true? And did you not apply your OWN version of logic to deduce that your assessment, that logic has no ability to discern any meaningful conclusions as to the basic nature of reality, is correct? You've made an absolute declaration about the tremendous limits of logic, but you've used YOUR own logic to come to that conclusion. But what if YOUR logic is flawed? That would mean you are wrong, no? This means that rational thought is morphing, constantly changing, and ultimately, undependable and irrational. But no one lives their lives as if that were the case. NO scientist believes that - else they would abandon the scientific method because it's based upon logical analysis of known facts, and the extraordinary specificity of how all things function - not in constant randomness, but with astounding predictability, given the correct variables are plugged into rigorousness, well-designed testing.

Post Reply