The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: cut to the chase...

Re: cut to the chase...
Posted by Arrow (Guest) - Thursday, December 8 2011, 17:18:12 (UTC)
from - Network - Linux - Opera
Website title:

Whatever kind of proof you want to call you have any for the existence of any god? It's really rather simple.

...and try not to answer a question with a will help us get to the point.

Sorry. I have to answer your question with a question. It is the same question you have not answered. The question is: “Does the possibility of an uncaused instigator sound more illogical than its alternative: infinite regression?”

Francis Collins also answers with a question. Check out his lecture: . His question is “which of those conclusions requires more faith?”.

Which one?

what is there to debate about the earth being flat? There can be no debate. 700 years ago you might have been able to have such a debate...but not any longer. There is no evidence for the existence of a god...period!

Again with the period? 700 years ago, our debate would have been like this:

A: “The earth could be round”
P: “show me the proof”.
A: “I don't have one, but...”

Did you read the fallacy I gave you? The fallacy says:

“Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.”

By saying “it is a FACT that there is no God BECAUSE there is no evidence”, you are committing a fallacy.

What you claim to be evidence, isn't.

Show me when, through a quotation, I have ever claimed something to be “EVIDENCE” for God's existence. Just show me.

we don;t know who if anything made say god...I say there is no evidence for that...and then you say that because I can't match you with some answer...because I don;t have a competing god, or some other idea I am certain of, or, since I can't prove to you that your god didn't create trees...there fore i MUST accept your way. There's no logic there.

No. I never said you “MUST” accept my explanation. When did I say that? Just show me when... SHOW ME!

Our argument went like this (I'm paraphrasing):

P: “For SURE there is no God”
A: “No, it's NOT for sure...”
P: “Do you belief in God?”
A: “Yes I do but...”
P: “Show me the proof then”
A: “There's isn't because you see...”

I never said “for sure there is God”. Yes I do believe there is God, but that's something personal. I never said DURING the debate that “there is God for a fact”. You, on the other hand, confirmed, “for a fact” that there is no God. Fact?

I didn't say you must accept my argument. All what I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong with CONSIDERING God as one of the possibilities.

Check out this interview:

You find some poop on the ground and say "Jesus did it"! I find the same poop and say, "I don't know who did it". One of us is being reasonable and the other is shoveling poop.

No you do not say "I don't know who did it". You do not say “I don't know how the universe came into existence”. You say “I do not 'believe'... I KNOW for a FACT that there is no God, no creator, no superior intellect behind all this”. And how did you, dear Pancho, come to know this for a fact?


it is not a belief that there is no is a belief that there IS a god. It is a FACT that there is no is not a belief.


>>[b] Aquinas starts out by saying "we know a god exists"...and then he thinks to prove it.
>>Source? Quote? I don't think so.
>...his first point or premise or whatever...he states that we know SOMETHING must be behind all of this...his four or five other steps are merely to prove that that someone is HIS god...very silly.

Ah so he does NOT start out by saying "we know God exists”. Let us have a look at what Aquinas said:

1. Everything is caused by something other than itself or else it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
2. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
3. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, then there must be a first cause.
4. This first cause is referred to as "God".

Yes he said “something” is behind all this. Do you have an objection to that? Of course you do: “It's silly”, isn't it?

>>God is one of the possibilities. Not only you reject it, you reject also the search for an alternative explanation. It would be foolish to do so, you say.
>...he is not a possibility...any more than a red wagon is a possibility. YOU think he is a possible explanation...but based on what?

Based on what? Was I talking to myself all the time? Our argument went as follows (I'm paraphrasing):

P: “God is not a possibility”
A: “Well, let's look at the alternative possibilities”
P: “I don't care”

Well, LET's look at the other possibilities:

1. Infinite regression (Aquinas and Aristotle)
2. Infinite parallel universes (from Francis Collin's lecture above)

You have not successfully refuted Aquinas. How about SHOWING us that he is silly instead of just SAYING he is silly. And how about showing us that Francis Collins is also silly.

I thought we were putting the existence of gods aside in favor of discussing the effect of religious belief and practices when people BELIEVE there is a god.

I said later.


The full topic:

Cookie: *hidded*
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/html, application/xml;q=0.9, application/xhtml+xml, image/png, image/webp, image/jpeg, image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, ...
Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.9
User-agent: Opera/9.80 (X11; Linux i686; U; en) Presto/2.9.168 Version/11.51
Content-length: 6730
Connection: close

Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9