20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

So yes you do believe in Jesus Christ and then yes you are a christian.

HAHAHAHA. Whatever you want to call me. I am anti-religious actually.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

In truth, people often misunderstand the argument by authority fallacy.

If the authority in question is irrelevant to the topic at hand, it is not advisable to utilize him, as it could be fallacious in its content.

The argument by authority's fallacy lies primarily as I recall in claiming that your argument hasmore validity because a person of some authority in that field has made the argument and/or supported it. Seems to me that's what you keep doing with your idol, Mr. Ravi Zecharias, including your implicit advertising of his book, it seems.

 

[KIYX]

Thats elephant hurl. Josh McDowell does an effective job of demonstrating the refutation of Skepticism, Agnosticism and Mysticism in his book "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

Included in this discussion is Zen Buddhism.

Weren't you the one who brought up the "appeal to authority" earlier?

 

[hamashiachagape]

Weren't you the one who brought up the "appeal to authority" earlier?

Okay. Josh McDowell is a Theologian who utilizes the leading Philosophers in various different capacities within his discourse. I'd think thats a valid authority.

 

[hamashiachagape]

The argument by authority's fallacy lies primarily as I recall in claiming that your argument hasmore validity because a person of some authority in that field has made the argument and/or supported it. Seems to me that's what you keep doing with your idol, Mr. Ravi Zecharias, including your implicit advertising of his book, it seems.

No, his argument is true. His role as a Philosopher gives him further credence. The source does have more credibility because of his position.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Thats elephant hurl. Josh McDowell does an effective job of demonstrating the refutation of Skepticism, Agnosticism and Mysticism in his book "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict."

Included in this discussion is Zen Buddhism.

More resorts to arguing by and/or through authority instead of trying to think for yourself, it seems.

And Zen Buddhism rarely if ever claims to be mysticism, since that tends to imply some kind of ultimate reality we can commune with like a person. Zen is Zen, to overclassify it misses the point. It's agnostic, ignostic, skeptic and overall apatheistic towards your rationalization and arguments for the existence of "God"

 

[KIYX]

You do? Tell me about Ancient Near East culture.

Atheism is a Greek Philosophy. Evidenced by the word.

Hahahaha, so now atheism is a greek philosophy because the word is greek.

Oh man you are good bro.

Allow me to assist you.

phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.


The concept of atheism fulfills none of these.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god concept.

Nothing more nothing less.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, his argument is true. His role as a Philosopher gives him further credence.

Credence is not the same thing as validity and a person's credence doesn't make them unquestionable, it only gives them a sense of veracity that means we should still take what they say with a grain of salt. Or are you so infatuated and fixated upon your golden calf that you can't realize that he might be wrong or misinformed about atheists since he doesn't know every one that has ever existed?

 

[hamashiachagape]

More resorts to arguing by and/or through authority instead of trying to think for yourself, it seems.

And Zen Buddhism rarely if ever claims to be mysticism, since that tends to imply some kind of ultimate reality we can commune with like a person. Zen is Zen, to overclassify it misses the point. It's agnostic, ignostic, skeptic and overall apatheistic towards your rationalization and arguments for the existence of "God"

Nothing wrong with appeals to authority, otherwise you technically can not make the claim above, since you are utilizing your own authority.

Zen Buddhism is also self refuting and ad hoc.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Credence is not the same thing as validity and a person's credence doesn't make them unquestionable, it only gives them a sense of veracity that means we should still take what they say with a grain of salt. Or are you so infatuated and fixated upon your golden calf that you can't realize that he might be wrong or misinformed about atheists since he doesn't know every one that has ever existed?

I'm aware of that a person's credence can make him a more valid source too though.

He might be wrong about certain things. However his arguments about "nonpositions" work.

It is special pleading to state that your position can not be evaluated then go around and try to evaluate other people's positions.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Nothing wrong with appeals to authority, otherwise you technically can not make the claim above, since you are utilizing your own authority.

Zen Buddhism is also self refuting and ad hoc.

Appeals to authority as sources is not the same, you seem to suggest that just because Ravi Zecharias is smart, there is no person who could argue against him logically, which is just absurd.

Again, I made no claim of ownership of any authority I used and I never said all arguments to authority were fallacious, only those that assume using the authority makes the argument more valid.

And elaborate how Zen is self refuting and ad hoc. Not that it completely matters, since Zen purports to seek to escape attachment to logical thinking, though not abandon it completely.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Hahahaha, so now atheism is a greek philosophy because the word is greek.

Oh man you are good bro.

Allow me to assist you.

phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.


The concept of atheism fulfills none of these.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god concept.

Nothing more nothing less.

Where does Atheism originate? The earliest definition that I have been able to locate of the word for Atheism is Psalms 14:1. After this, Pythagoras is the earliest evidence we have of an actual Atheist. Where is Pythagoras from?....Give you a hint. Where does most Mathematical concepts come from? You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem right? Greece.

The above definition is merely revisionistic, is thoroughly debunked by Ravi Zecharia's book in less than 100 pages.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I'm aware of that a person's credence can make him a more valid source too though.

He might be wrong about certain things. However his arguments about "nonpositions" work.

It is special pleading to state that your position can not be evaluated then go around and try to evaluate other people's positions.

When did I say my positions couldn't be evaluated?

Arguments may work, but no argument is airtight. He assumes that all nonpositions are the same. Saying I am not Hispanic is a nonposition, yet it has value. You need to clarify which kind of nonposition you are talking about.

My atheism, etc, are just parts of my identity, I don't answer the same every time with regards to every question about "God". I'm an atheist insomuch as people assume I mean a particular definition of "God" for instance.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Appeals to authority as sources is not the same, you seem to suggest that just because Ravi Zecharias is smart, there is no person who could argue against him logically, which is just absurd.

Again, I made no claim of ownership of any authority I used and I never said all arguments to authority were fallacious, only those that assume using the authority makes the argument more valid.

And elaborate how Zen is self refuting and ad hoc. Not that it completely matters, since Zen purports to seek to escape attachment to logical thinking, though not abandon it completely.

False dichotomies. Plus I disagree with some of Ravi Zechariah's explanations too, though he's got good points. There were several things while he covered for instance on Adolf Hitler's occultish following, he fails to mention that some of the fuel to his fire was the writings of Martin Luther. There is validity to this position too, but it is not exemplary of the church, since it does not accept the writings of "The Jews and Their Lies" for the most part. He was still right, he just could have benefited from further explanation. Most scholars also understand the purpose for Luther's writings, though see the degree to accept that his writings were wrong and anti-semitic. But I can find some things wrong with many other authoritative understandings about certain subject material as well.

You can't see how Zen Buddhism is self refuting and ad hoc? It contained the same problems that the Sokaggakai had when I read it. Every other page has a contradiction. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate.

 

[hamashiachagape]

When did I say my positions couldn't be evaluated?

Arguments may work, but no argument is airtight. He assumes that all nonpositions are the same. Saying I am not Hispanic is a nonposition, yet it has value. You need to clarify which kind of nonposition you are talking about.

My atheism, etc, are just parts of my identity, I don't answer the same every time with regards to every question about "God". I'm an atheist insomuch as people assume I mean a particular definition of "God" for instance.

No, Atheism says this, as does Existentialism, and Postmodernists as they reduce themselves to Mysticistic in nature.

 

[KIYX]

Where does Atheism originate? The earliest definition that I have been able to locate of the word for Atheism is Psalms 14:1. After this, Pythagoras is the earliest evidence we have of an actual Atheist. Where is Pythagoras from?....Give you a hint. Where does most Mathematical concepts come from? You are familiar with the Pythagorean theorem right? Greece.

So you are now arguing about the origination of the word... which I agreed was greek.

Keep up.

It being greek doesn't make it a philosophy.

The above definition is merely revisionistic, is thoroughly debunked by Ravi Zecharia's book in less than 100 pages.

Fortunately lil Ravi isn't an authority on language but you've once again appealed to authority.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

False dichotomies. Plus I disagree with some of Ravi Zechariah's explanations too, just as I can find some things wrong with many other authoritative understandings about certain subject material.

You can't see how Zen Buddhism is self refuting and ad hoc? It contained the same problems that the Sokaggakai had when I read it. Every other page has a contradiction. Nonetheless, I will demonstrate.

I never said you couldn't disagree, at least you are admitting that you disagree with the man you still seem to put on a pedestal.

Zen is not identical with Nichiren, except in that they are both extensions of Mahayana Buddhism, as contrasted with Theravada or Vajrayana. You can't compare Zen to Nichiren and expect me to take you seriously in critiquing it unless you're trying to argue all Buddhism is self refuting and ad hoc, which frankly I don't see you trying to do. You say you read a text and then assume that because you can't understand it, it must be illogical or logically fallacious? That appears to be moreso a rash jump to conclusions.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

No, Atheism says this, as does Existentialism, and Postmodernists as they reduce themselves to Mysticistic in nature.

Atheism, existentialism and postmodernism don't say what you say they do except in isolated incidents. You can't generalize the whole use of a concept except as it is formalized in a system, which atheism doesn't have. There aren't associated beliefs with atheism, there is only the basic mental state of not believing in a God.

Is that a better description for this mechanistic logic you are using ad nauseum to try to analyze virtually any defense one puts forward as fallacious instead of looking at the argument and seeing what value it has. Instead you just dismiss it at face value because it's defending something you've already concluded before rational thought is without value.

 

[KIYX]

Sorry I forgot something, hamashiachagape I just refuted your God, how do I know? because I just said I did,
and just like you that's good enough for me.

Given that your argument holds as much evidence as his no doubt Hamas will reject his god.

 

[hamashiachagape]

A point that Henry Rosemont Jr. points out is this about Zen Buddhism, "If one accepts Suzuki's claim that satori is devoid of rational content, there are several resulting problems which must be examined: 1) How would the student know that he had had the expereicne? 2) How would he be able to name it? What could possibly count as evidence that his experience was to be called "satori."? 3) How could anyone ever know, or justify the claim that someone else had had a similar experience? 4) How could such an experience, devoid of rational content, verify the metaphysical principles of Mahayana Buddhism, as Suzuki claims that it does?"