Argument for God's existence.

[InterestedAtheist]

so an athiest that is agnostic, does not believe in God but can't prove it (because he doesnt' know, hence the agnostic part?)

No, I'm afraid you've forgotten what I said in post #496. Russell's Teapot. Bertrand Russell, the famous twentieth century philosopher, had encountered this "You have to believe I am right if you can't prove me wrong" argument, and countered it with https://www.gotquestions.org/Russells-teapot.html

And as far as definitions are concerned, I typically don't use newer words, because I don't agree with how the world is right now, so I use traditional words.

If you want people to not understand you because you're speaking archaic English, go ahead. Don't expect anyone else to understand you or agree with you.

New words are typically politically motivated and from a particular worldview, usually humanism. Because that is what is running the country right now.

That is not true in the slightest. You're confusing "losing Christian privilege" with "being oppressed".

So I am very offended at things that are new, but political, or slanted toward humanism. Is that wrong?

Yes, because they aren't "slanted towards humanism". You just made that up.

I am not a humanist so why should I honor a humanistic word?

It's not a "humanist" word, it's a secular word (you may not be aware that "secular" does not mean "anti-Christian" or "biased against religion"; it means "religiously neutral"). In other words, it's just a neutral English word that describes something.
But another point is this: if you are not a humanist, why should you be allowed to define what humanists or atheists believe? (They are not at all the same thing, of course, but there is something of an overlap between the two groups). Would you like it if I rewrote the Bible and started to publish a new version?

Evolutionists coined a term just for them to use in debates with creationists. Only wiki related dictionaries even use it. But to them it's real, it's called "the quote mine." But we already had words for that, it was called quoting out of context, and miss quoting. But those were not mean enough towards creationists, so lets make a sassy sounding word just to nail them on. "oh you quote mined that." But at worse I quoted out of context, but that is nearly impossible to prove. So it's easier just to say it's quote mined and not deal with it.

Quote mining is a pretty good label for something that creationists are well-known for doing, taking quotes out of context in order to alter their meaning. It's a form of lying, which I understood was supposed to be against the Christian religion. And no, it's not "almost impossible to prove", it's extremely easy to prove. All you have to do is show the original quote in context to demonstrate how a quote-miner is taking it out of context. And whether you call it quote mining, falsehood-chopping or pizza-spreading, taking a quote of of context so that its meaning is changed is deceitful.

So I don't honor words that are new (if they are politically biased or biased in a humanistic way). So I use the original definitions.

Well, if you insist on speaking seventeenth-century English to people, try not to be surprised if people have trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

If you have a problem with how I define things, you can blame the fact that language is fluid. And that languages change all the time. But I know, you can change it but I can't. I get it.

You're mistaken about many things. Language changes as society changes. In this case, regarding the words "atheist" and "atheism" the change has been an improvement; it honours both what people think and reflects the etymology of the word; in short, the word now closer reflects reality. One again, if you were to construct a word to mean "person who lacks belief in God" a-theist is pretty much what you'd have to come up with.

But if you want to continue speaking in the seventeenth century, instead of English like the rest of us, be our guest. As for me, though, I'll decline your kind invitation to go back in time four hundred years.

 

[HitchSlap]

Willful ignorance allows one to remain ignorant.

It seems this is what his psyche needs atm.

 

[RichardY]

@InterestedAtheist

I get the a-theist. As opposed to atheo-ist. I was more the former at one point, if god doesn't exist, why is the notion of God still there? How do I deal with it, am I in error, anyone have a solution for basically blaspheming God out of existence....

As it's No to both. Atheist is redundant. There's no need to say Agnostic-Atheist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If elves don't exist, why is the notion of elves still there?

 

[HitchSlap]

I get the a-theist. As opposed to atheo-ist. I was more the former at one point, if god doesn't exist, why is the notion of God still there?

Same could be said of Cthulhu.

How do I deal with it,

I suggest you limit your beliefs to evidence and reason.

am I in error,

Highly probable. We're all wrong about some things.

anyone have a solution for basically blaspheming God out of existence....

TBH, it didn't come all that hard for me. I just realized one day I no longer believed.

As it's No to both. Atheist is redundant. There's no need to say Agnostic-Atheist.

Unless of course, I take agnosticism to be a position of knowledge, as in I don't have knowledge of god/s, and atheism as a statement of belief, as in I don't believe in god/s.

 

[HitchSlap]

Stick to your own advice, hypocrite.

Struck a nerve, did I?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If elves don't exist, why is the notion of elves still there?

...because what's a good fantasy tale (or game) without them?

 

[Moral Orel]

As it's No to both. Atheist is redundant. There's no need to say Agnostic-Atheist.

Agnostic is about knowledge, atheist is about belief. It's easier to understand if we take all the stakes out of it.

My shirt is gray.

1. Do you believe my shirt is gray?
2. Do you know my shirt is gray?

Those are two very different questions.

 

[RichardY]

@Nicholas Deka

Agnostic is about knowledge, atheist is about belief. It's easier to understand if we take all the stakes out of it.

My shirt is gray.

1. Do you believe my shirt is gray?
2. Do you know my shirt is gray?

Those are two very different questions.

What would you say is the distinction between knowledge and belief?

I believe the main accepted epistemic theory of knowledge is the "Justified True Believe".

 

[InterestedAtheist]

...because what's a good fantasy tale (or game) without them?

Bingo!

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's take a step back....The moral case for Gods existence. There is a love among humanity that is not duplicated in the animal wold. Self sacrificial love. bitterness is easy. love is hard. it takes a lot of strength to be hurt by someone and choose to see good in them anyway. but Jesus did for me, so i pray i am able to live the same way. it’s very true that some people just won’t care, but i don’t want to be one of those people. I see love in the animal kingdom, but not the christian type of love that signifies love for enemies, and self sarificial love. Because this love has no alternative natural origin we can conclude the love is of Divine source, from God. As a divine source makes logical sense and because there is no alternative.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I'm afraid you've forgotten what I said in post #496. Russell's Teapot. Bertrand Russell, the famous twentieth century philosopher, had encountered this "You have to believe I am right if you can't prove me wrong" argument, and countered it with What is Russell’s teapot?

If you want people to not understand you because you're speaking archaic English, go ahead. Don't expect anyone else to understand you or agree with you.

That is not true in the slightest. You're confusing "losing Christian privilege" with "being oppressed".

Yes, because they aren't "slanted towards humanism". You just made that up.

It's not a "humanist" word, it's a secular word (you may not be aware that "secular" does not mean "anti-Christian" or "biased against religion"; it means "religiously neutral"). In other words, it's just a neutral English word that describes something.
But another point is this: if you are not a humanist, why should you be allowed to define what humanists or atheists believe? (They are not at all the same thing, of course, but there is something of an overlap between the two groups). Would you like it if I rewrote the Bible and started to publish a new version?

Quote mining is a pretty good label for something that creationists are well-known for doing, taking quotes out of context in order to alter their meaning. It's a form of lying, which I understood was supposed to be against the Christian religion. And no, it's not "almost impossible to prove", it's extremely easy to prove. All you have to do is show the original quote in context to demonstrate how a quote-miner is taking it out of context. And whether you call it quote mining, falsehood-chopping or pizza-spreading, taking a quote of of context so that its meaning is changed is deceitful.

Well, if you insist on speaking seventeenth-century English to people, try not to be surprised if people have trouble understanding what you're trying to say.

You're mistaken about many things. Language changes as society changes. In this case, regarding the words "atheist" and "atheism" the change has been an improvement; it honours both what people think and reflects the etymology of the word; in short, the word now closer reflects reality. One again, if you were to construct a word to mean "person who lacks belief in God" a-theist is pretty much what you'd have to come up with.

But if you want to continue speaking in the seventeenth century, instead of English like the rest of us, be our guest. As for me, though, I'll decline your kind invitation to go back in time four hundred years.

Thank you for replying, but for sake of nOT having time to address all the errors made in this post, I will have to do it later. But I am not sure it is worth it. If you would step back and not let emotion rule over your posts you may have longer debate time with people. Emotion creates errors. As is evident in the numerous errors posted. Everyone knows what I posted and what you represented of my post was factually not true or based in evidence. So I don't need to defend myself, the last few pages show the truth. But for now, I agree to disagree that any one and their brother has authority to alter the English language.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is a love among humanity that is not duplicated in the animal wold.

Prove it.

 

[Moral Orel]

What would you say is the distinction between knowledge and belief?

I believe the main accepted epistemic theory of knowledge is the "Justified True Believe".

In the crudest of terms, belief is just a feeling. Knowledge is something that can be demonstrated to be true. You have to insert a lot of subjectivity to choose what constitutes a sound demonstration of the truth, but you don't need any of that to feel that something is true. Of course, if you can demonstrate something is true, then you'll likely feel that it's true too.

So back to my analogy, I told you my shirt is gray. Maybe you feel like I'm telling the truth, maybe you don't. But I haven't demonstrated to you that it is by showing up at your house and ringing the bell, so you don't know whether it is or not.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because this love has no alternative natural origin we can conclude the love is of Divine source, from God. As a divine source makes logical sense and because there is no alternative.

Unsupported assertion...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Thank you for replying, but for sake of nOT having time to address all the errors made in this post, I will have to do it later. But I am not sure it is worth it. The slant you are taking is mean and not said from a mature adult point of view. But from a somewhat childish perspective. If you would step back and not let emotion rule over your posts you may have longer debate time with people. Emotion creates errors. As is evident in the numerous errors posted. Everyone knows what I posted and what you represented of my post was factually not true or based in evidence. So I don't need to defend myself, the last few pages show the truth. But for now, I agree to disagree that any one and their brother has authority to alter the English language.

Describe his errors, or no one is going to believe there are any errors, and instead believe your post is just a attempt to save face.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
First, according to the law of causality, the cause of an effect cannot be part of the effect, therefore whatever caused the universe, cannot be part of the universe, ie "outside" space time and matter or transcendent to it. That fits God.

cv: It's quite possible the 'universe' is eternal. If such turns out to be the case, invoking a 'creator' is a silly notion. The honest answer is, we just don't really know. And even if some process proves as such, many may still deny this conclusion, if it does not already presuppose their a priori assumption.

ed: So far almost all of the scientific evidence points to it not being eternal. And more is being discovered every month. Of course, most people will deny this conclusion, especially the conclusion that it is the Christian God, because humans naturally hate Him.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Second, the universe contains purposes, such as eyes are for seeing, ears are for hearing, and etc. We know from all of human experience that only persons can create purposes for things, so therefore, the cause must be personal, and so is the Christian God.

cv: The universe has many attributes which have no seeming purpose. Thus, what measurement or meter-stick might one use to determine this assertion? Do we simply measure up the attributes which appear to have specific purpose, against the attributes which do not appear to; and which ever number is higher, is more probable?

ed: True but the fact that there exists anything in the universe that has a purpose points to a personal creator. The other things may have purposes that we have yet to discover.

cv: Or maybe, we can instead investigate the animals, which have eyes, whom cannot see, for example...

ed: That is called adaptation. The creator has created organisms that can adapt to the environment. Such as cavefish, that over time have lost their ability to see even though they have remnant eyes. But originally they did have eyes that worked.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Third, the universe is a diversity within a unity. We know that things that are created by persons usually have a "fingerprint" of the person that created it, like how art experts can determine who an artist is by studying a painting and learning certain little trademark things that the painter does to be different from other painters. So the reason the universe is a diversity within a unity is because the nature of the Creator is a diversity within a unity, just like the Christian God's nature as the Trinity, which is also a diversity within a unity. Therefore, the most likely cause of the universe is the Triune Christian God. No other god or cause has such a nature.

cv: This process fails because we do not have more than one universe to compare as such (i.e) your artist to painting analogy. Until we discover more universes, identifying a distinctive 'fingerprint' fails.

ed: No, as long as we have anything that was created, we can compare it to those things. And we can make rational assumptions about what type of universe other gods were create such as allah, which is a pure unity, therefore its universe would be a unity without any diversity.

cv: As I've stated to others... It's one thing to invoke a creator. But it's an entirely new ball of wax to invoke the Christian God. And again, if the universe's existence is eternal, then your argument stops abruptly at your 'first' point

See above how almost all the evidence points to the universe not being eternal.

 

[Moral Orel]

ed: True but the fact that there exists anything in the universe that has a purpose points to a personal creator. The other things may have purposes that we have yet to discover.

Calling them "purposes" is just begging the question. Things have functions, and people assign purposes to those things in line with those functions.

 

[createdtoworship]

Unsupported assertion...

it makes logical sense, when you use logic you search for logical alternatives, if there is no other one, accept one. You use that one as your hypothesis.

 

[createdtoworship]

Describe his errors, or no one is going to believe there are any errors, and instead believe your post is just a attempt to save face.

it would take too much time I am afraid. But I am ok with you not believing me. You don't believe God for that matter, why would I care if you didn't believe his follower?