20 arguments for the existence of God

[hamashiachagape]

Existentialism is false because experience is not self interpreting.

Postmodernism believes one can not determine what a given context of writing says, but insodoing assumes the given context of its own. Thats self refuting.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I'm sorry did you want a real answer or one that invokes magical beings?

Which is cool because I never claimed that.

Science is dependent upon evidence.

You are misunderstanding. Evidence is that which can serve to uphold Science.

Science is A Posteriori in Philosophical terms.

So shall I present you the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

 

[KIYX]

Wow, strong accusations. Prove them.

See your post at the top of page 35. Also I am not the only one who has noticed that you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths. You've been asked more than once to stop it.

The definition of God, regardless of whether you and I want to believe this, as it has been defined by ALL cultures is all knowing, all powerful, always present.

Unless your talking about the Norse gods, the hindu gods, the greek and roman gods...... sorry but no.

 

[hamashiachagape]

See your post at the top of page 35. Also I am not the only one who has noticed that you enjoy putting words into peoples mouths. You've been asked more than once to stop it.

Unless your talking about the Norse gods, the hindu gods, the greek and roman gods...... sorry but no.

Those are so defined as well. But they are equally false. The Principle of Identity demonstrates how this is so.

 

[hamashiachagape]

I am inferring based off of what I've studied from other Atheists, but I dont' think its a reach considering that is all you really have to go with.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I refuted Atheism.

Skepticism is self refuting becuase it must be skeptical of itself.

Agnosticism says it can not know, but it knows that it can not know, so it is self refuting.

Ignosticism says God can not be defined, but defines him as unknowable inso doing. Thats self refuting (as is the definition, see Agnosticism).

Each of these refutations assumes that all skeptics/agnostics/ignostics are the same in their degree of believing the basic idea of whatever particular system they espouse.

Not all skeptics are pyrhhonists, which by Socrates' demonstration are indeed contradictory.

Not all agnostics are radical to the extent of claiming absolute knowledge that they don't know, in fact most are just skeptics regarding God, they have certainty on other things more than likely.

And ignostics as well have at least two forms, if not at least a third, the third potentially being the group you have pointed out in some form of refutation. But technically ignosticism only says that in order for an adequate discussion about God, a coherent and falsifiable definition must first be presented. And if this is unable to be presented, they take a theological noncognitivist perspective, stating that the question is meaningless and has no real content within it.

Similarly, atheists do not take God as seriously as you would believe they consciously or subconsciously do, therefore they are not being contradictory in disbelieving in something that they recognize as having some significance but still not believing in it as reality in the same way all humans essentially recognize gravity for instance.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Each of these refutations assumes that all skeptics/agnostics/ignostics are the same in their degree of believing the basic idea of whatever particular system they espouse.

Not all skeptics are pyrhhonists, which by Socrates' demonstration are indeed contradictory.

Not all agnostics are radical to the extent of claiming absolute knowledge that they don't know, in fact most are just skeptics regarding God, they have certainty on other things more than likely.

And ignostics as well have at least two forms, if not at least a third, the third potentially being the group you have pointed out in some form of refutation. But technically ignosticism only says that in order for an adequate discussion about God, a coherent and falsifiable definition must first be presented. And if this is unable to be presented, they take a theological noncognitivist perspective, stating that the question is meaningless and has no real content within it.

Similarly, atheists do not take God as seriously as you would believe they consciously or subconsciously do, therefore they are not being contradictory in disbelieving in something that they recognize as having some significance but still not believing in it as reality in the same way all humans essentially recognize gravity for instance.

I'm carrying their understandings to their obvious conclusions. Thats all I'm doing.

My point in all of this is that even in their regards to God, it is equally invalid to make the claims.

 

[KIYX]

I refuted Atheism.

Not yet.

Skepticism is self refuting becuase it must be skeptical of itself.

Skepticism is healthy, it keeps people from being made fools of.

It's not self refuting at all. Skepticism says, "I question everything". It's quite healthy.

Agnosticism says it can not know, but it knows that it can not know, so it is self refuting.

Agnosticism says that god(s) is/are unknowable. That's all, it's not self refuting at all.

Ignosticism says God can not be defined, but defines him as unknowable inso doing. Thats self refuting (as is the definition, see Agnosticism).

That's not what Ignosticism says.

It says you need a coherent definition before the question of existence can be discussed.

 

[KIYX]

So God so loved the world means he is tormenting you?

That's the whole verse?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

You're carrying them to extreme conclusions. Not every skeptic concludes that skepticism must manifest pyrhhonism and so on. You can't assume everyone behaves at the far end of a spectrum when the very nature of a spectrum philosophy suggests there are multiple types of that single philosophy, just like liberalism in political philosophy.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Not yet.

Skepticism is healthy, it keeps people from being made fools of.

It's not self refuting at all. Skepticism says, "I question everything". It's quite healthy.

Agnosticism says that god(s) is/are unknowable. That's all, it's not self refuting at all.


That's not what Ignosticism says.

It says you need a coherent definition before the question of existence can be discussed.

You haven't demonstrated how any of the above information is true. Your explanations are ad hoc.

 

[KIYX]

So shall I present you the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?

So you will be the one to do it? After 2000 years?

 

[hamashiachagape]

You're carrying them to extreme conclusions. Not every skeptic concludes that skepticism must manifest pyrhhonism and so on. You can't assume everyone behaves at the far end of a spectrum when the very nature of a spectrum philosophy suggests there are multiple types of that single philosophy, just like liberalism in political philosophy.

It gives you the implications of the belief, and you are ignoring the Principle of Excluded Middle.

 

[hamashiachagape]

So you will be the one to do it? After 2000 years?

Its been done. Atheists just bury their heads in the sand about it.

 

[KIYX]

Those are so defined as well.

The only way you could say that would be if you were being dishonest or if you were ignorant of those religions.

Which do we have here?

 

[hamashiachagape]

The only way you could say that would be if you were being dishonest or if you were ignorant of those religions.

Which do we have here?

False dilemma.

 

[KIYX]

Its been done. Atheists just bury their heads in the sand about it.

Haha, then go ahead.

 

[KIYX]

False dilemma.

That's right I apologize you could be both ignorant and dishonest.

 

[hamashiachagape]

Haha, then go ahead.

4 collaberating accounts from Matthew, Mark, Luke and JOhn also supported through explanations of all different scores of information outside of the Bible, also supported throughout all time through various philosophers and well educated people.

Are you willing to deny the existence of George Washington?

 

[hamashiachagape]

That's right I apologize you could be both ignorant and dishonest.

Or I could know what I"m talking about.