What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider
Religion
Philosophy
logic

Posts

Total: 436
#391
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
If you believe that santa claus is an actual being rather than an imaginary one or if you do not make a distinction between actual and imaginary then no I don't suppose I do.
Well if one subscribes to history that the legend of Santa Klaus stemmed from "Saint" Nicholas, then Santa Klaus would have actual being even by your materialist standards. But as I've continued to argue, as far as existence is concerned, there's no significant distinction between material and immaterial.

I however make a distinction between actual and imagined.
That's fine so long as the distinction concerns the distinction itself. When applied to existence or ontological analysis, your reasoning will warrant the substantiation of logical consistency.
#392
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Well if one subscribes to history that the legend of Santa Klaus stemmed from "Saint" Nicholas, then Santa Klaus would have actual being even by your materialist standards. But as I've continued to argue, as far as existence is concerned, there's no significant distinction between material and immaterial.
I am distinguishing between any historical character and the imaginary figure of santa claus (here defined as a jolly magic fat man who delivers presents all over the world on Christmas eve) if you are not making this distinction then that is your choice but it makes the words real and exist more or less meaningless since their function is specifically make the distinction between reality and fiction. 
That's fine so long as the distinction concerns the distinction itself. When applied to existence or ontological analysis, your reasoning will warrant the substantiation of logical consistency.
If belief = perception = reality or even if you replace = with informs then there is no distinction between a thing which actually exists and a thing which any given human believes exists. Without this distinction the words real and exist are largely meaningless as they pertain to the physical reality of as separate from any given incorrect perception.

If the words reality and exist can be applied to anything and every fanciful notion we come up with exists and is real then 

A we do not mean the same thing when we use the words

and

B then any discussion of things which are provably part of physical reality in the way I mean it as opposed to fictional becomes completely impossible. 


#393
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I am distinguishing between any historical character and the imaginary figure of santa claus (here defined as a jolly magic fat man who delivers presents all over the world on Christmas eve) if you are not making this distinction then that is your choice but it makes the words real and exist more or less meaningless since their function is specifically make the distinction between reality and fiction.
No, that is your impression. Exist makes no such distinction. A short search of the definition of "imaginary" would result in "existing only in the imagination." Why would the term "existing" be present in the description of imaginary, if the two are discrete? Because "exist" and "material" are not one and the same.

If belief = perception = reality or even if you replace = with informs then there is no distinction between a thing which actually exists and a thing which any given human believes exists. Without this distinction the words real and exist are largely meaningless as they pertain to the physical reality of as separate from any given incorrect perception.
Once again, you're attempting to manipulate the description of existence. Existence does not exclusively pertain to physical reality. Everything is. Everything we perceive is. Everything perceived exists. You may disagree, but it's not difficult to grasp.

If the words reality and exist can be applied to anything and every fanciful notion we come up with exists and is real then 

A we do not mean the same thing when we use the words

and

B then any discussion of things which are provably part of physical reality in the way I mean it as opposed to fictional becomes completely impossible. 
I know what you mean when you apply the term "exist" but remember it is you who challenged my argument and my applied description of the term. When your challenge is reduced, all you're stating is that you don't accept the application of the description I offered. That is not the same as my argument being logically inconsistent or logically unsound. Or even "false."


#394
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
Ok then what language would you like to use to make this distinction?
#395
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I've already argued the reason the distinction between material and immaterial is insignificant (i.e. the immaterial is applied to and informs the standards of the material.) And the distinction between existent and nonexistent already imputes error given that "nonexistence" is incoherent. What distinction is there left to be made?
#396
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Athias
So you don't want to have a discussion at all. You only desire to shut the conversation down. You would like to muddy the waters till conversation is pointless. 
#397
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Are you saying that you are open minded on the issue of the existence of a god?
#398
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@secularmerlin
So you don't want to have a discussion at all.
We are having a discussion at the moment.

You only desire to shut the conversation down.
If that were true, I would simply not respond at all. Furthermore, my "desires" are irrelevant.

You would like to muddy the waters till conversation is pointless. 
No. I intend to hold materialists accountable for their pointless distinctions.
#399
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you saying that you are open minded on the issue of the existence of a god?
"open-mindedness" is not the antithesis to "cherry pick." I'm receptive to arguments that are informed with vigorous reasoning.
#400
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Athias believes in ontological bedrock.

Athias does not believe in epistemological limits.

I hope that clears things up.
#401
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Vigorous reasoning is as vigorous reasoning does.....One can reason vigorously with nonsense.

And the comparison you made between open mindedness and cherry picking, is just that.
#402
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,591
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
“The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change this.” - Albert Einstein 1954
#403
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
Consider that it is a title of reverence, sort of like "king" but not necessarily referring to a person.  If you do not recognize a man's entitlement to authority within a nation, they may still be there acting as a ruler regardless of your respect.

If you can be sure of one thing it is that however you may interpret it, "YHWH" "I am" "I am that I am" "I will be what I will be", refers to a being.  If you have more faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow than what the Christians revere as God, perhaps you should reconsider whether you understand what they are referring to and worship. 

#404
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Vigorous reasoning is as vigorous reasoning does.....One can reason vigorously with nonsense.

And the comparison you made between open mindedness and cherry picking, is just that.
The comparison I made between open-mindedness and cherry picking was neither vigorous nor nonsensical.

#405
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
I never said it was.

436 days later

#406
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
 I do however want a proper debate and to know that the person I am debating understands what a debate is and how it functions. One of the primary things about having a real debate is that parties can recognize when a decent argument arises - but also when they have been beaten fair and square
I've arrived. 
#407
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Bones
I see Stephen has been giving you his little black book on me. 

LOL @ you. 

it was from a discussion I was having with the Brother.   He did not want to have a debate with me on fair and reasonable terms. He wanted it all his own way. 

I told him - to come back once he was ready. 

Are you suggesting that you having "arrived" are back? 
#408
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Tradesecret
He did not want to have a debate with me on fair and reasonable terms. 
Define reasonable terms 
#409
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Bones
Tradesecret wrote:  I do however want a proper debate and to know that the person I am debating understands what a debate is and how it functions. One of the primary things about having a real debate is that parties can recognize when a decent argument arises - but also when they have been beaten fair and square
Bones wrote: I've arrived. 


Tradesecret wrote: I see Stephen has been giving you his little black book on me. 

And you can you prove that wild and paranoid accusation can you Reverend "Tradey"?  I very much doubt it.
#410
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

Well?
#411
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
Mere Christianity is a great book. I’d say the book is a decent place to start.
#412
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
prove what? That you share information with other users.  ????

And how would I do that? 

Bones referred specifically to a discussion that I and the Brother were involved with. The only person I know on this site who has a black book on anyone else is you. 

And you use it for your ends.  

I could care less about proving that you hold a black book. Everyone knows you have a record of everything I say. You are an obsessed old man. Obsessed with me.  I have said before I would be flattered except for the fact of the information you have is so creepy.  

And the fact that you quote me more than anyone else is creepy.  I know you do it because you think it is funny.  But well - yep "creepy" is really the word that I would use for you.  And I am sure others think the same thing. 
#413
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
That you share information with other users.  ????

No sunshine. That will be you that shared all of your own personal information on a forum of the WWW. 

Would you like me to show you the author of all of those claims? Because I can assure you it wasn't me that invented them out of thin air on your behalf.
#414
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Everyone shares information. Not everyone collect it and uses it for their point scoring. 

Creeps do. 
#415
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Everyone shares information.

 That's correct. And you certainly have shared a mass of information about yourself. So much so that it cannot be avoided on almost any thread you join. 


Not everyone collect it and uses it for their point scoring. 

What points do you believe I have scored against you Reverend?  Haven't you thanked me over and over for "promoting you"  and "showcasing" your theological knowledge and expertise, and urged me to continue to " brag about you and all of your credentials"? 

 You really are dense aren't you. I don't collect it. It is all collected in one nice large brief on this forum, or didn't you know that. I access it and simply deploy the appropriate comment, your own comment to the situation at hand. A good memory recall helps, I will admit.

  I just repeat what you have said to remind you of what you have said and claims you have made in the past and when I see you using double standards and contradicting yourself..
 And especially when you call others out for one reason or another, such as being ignorant and not understanding of scripture.  Or  for being"dumb as fuck" and "slime of Satan" or simply an "idiot".     You actually invite them- your own comments -  yourself.  



Here is a perfect example of YOU inviting comments from YOUR OWN  back catalogue of comments:



Tradesecrete wrote: The irony of a religious forum where the atheist comes in swaggering like he knows everything 

Stephen wrote: Not to mention the theist that "swaggers in" preening himself and parading all his qualifications and accreditations, in the false belief that these imagined qualifications and accreditations put him  at a higher ` holier than thou ` level than others...... on this forum. 

Stephen wrote: Have a guess who that is, Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete?

Tradesecret wrote: 

"I study the original languages, translate them to English",  #25

"I have my Hebrew teacher" #45

"But in my role as a pastor - which I also do, I counsel in pastoral care.  And yes, I am qualified by certified colleges with proper accreditation.  I am also a chaplain to our Countries Defence forces, a position I could not have without proper qualifications".  #20

"I do  understand Orthodoxy. I studied and was tutored by academics, scholars, and priests and fathers from the Orthodox Church". #91

"I counsel all of my clients never to answer yes or no. Why would I not take my own advice? Life is more complex than black and white - yes and no answers". #15

" I am a lawyer" #20
Stephen wrote: Some serious swaggering going on there, me thinks, Reverend "Tradey" Tradesecrete. 
I mean talk about a gasconading Reverend.


Gasconading
To praise or express pride in one's own possessions, qualities, or accomplishments often to excess. the Baron Munchhausen was so notorious for gasconading about his purported exploits as soldier and hunter that his name has become synonymous with the telling of tall tales.

Take a look here and tell me what you think  Reverend Munchhausen?  










Would you like me to show you the author of all of those claims? Because I can assure you it wasn't me that invented them out of thin air on your behalf.

#416
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I got up at two in the morning and saw this, and was like, this is like the ontological argument's older sibling that got tired of the rules of modal logic and said, "I'm going all in"....

I love it. I'm not sure that it works but  love it. 

It works out quite well actually.
Does this also work to establish the existence of the tooth fairy?

Not being a smart ass, I’m genuinely trying to understand what the argument here is.
#417
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Hi Stephen - 

happy new year to you as well. I hope your family is doing ok. And that your health is fine too.  I know England has really been through the wars with Covid and the cricket - but hey - while we Aussies win the ashes - etc and pretty much everything else - it does not mean we don't feel for you.  In other words we understand why you are so grumpy and full of scorn. 

Cheers. 
#418
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Does this also work to establish the existence of the tooth fairy?
Yes.

Not being a smart ass, I’m genuinely trying to understand what the argument here is.
I can only presume you've been inculcated with impressions that what you think must not exist, despite the fact that what you perceive is necessarily informed by what you think. And nothing could be further from the "truth."

#419
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?

If not then please explain what it means for an argument to “work”.
#420
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
I don't "believe in" the tooth fairy--i.e. subscribe to the ideas and values associated with the tooth fairy; I acknowledge the tooth fairy's existence.