Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

If my intent was for him to start to pick apart all said claims, then yes, I would agree, I'm presenting a 'gish gallop.' However, that was never the intention. I'm simply providing a video in return, in a playful manor, to present as to why I don't hold his belief, (for some of the reasons presented). You see the difference?

That's the intent of a Gish Gallup. To provide an argument that feels like a cumulative case that is too large and diverse to challenge in any sort of timely manner. You know that no one is going to bother creating a multitude of new threads to challenge all of the separate checks, so your "argument" will sit there unchallenged.

I have no problem having my ideas challenged. Otherwise, I would not hang around on a public forum, with individuals whom do not share my current conclusions.

So please, 'challenge' away But I do find it curious, you offered nothing of criticism to the other poster's video; especially when you most likely do not share his views.

I didn't watch his video. I've been challenging him throughout the thread, which he has largely ignored. What's curious about me challenging his arguments in this thread? That the ones I chose to argue against aren't the ones you think I should have chosen to argue against? What's curious about that?

I assume, by 'poor argument', you are referring to the 'gish gallop' and not so much the many embedded arguments presented within it?.?.?

If it is the former, my intent was not to present as such. But to instead demonstrate only some of the reasons I do not conquer with his conclusions; to let him know there is really nothing for him to PM me about.

If it is the later, then by all means, create new topics, and address the individual arguments you find invalid. I will be more than happy to engage, where I see applicable. And BTW, if it is the later, then you ARE interjecting your opinion

Yes, Gish Gallups are poor arguments. If he is PMing you, then PM him to stop. If you present a poor argument publicly, be prepared to be called on it.

Let's say I want to waste my time engaging it. Are you confident enough about each and every check that no matter which one I pick, you'll be prepared to defend it? Do you think there are no checks I can't void in a post or two?

I'll make you a deal. I'll pick one check and you can argue against it. If you concede it was a bad point he made, then you retract your video and never post it again. If you do exactly what I predict and state, "Okay, that was a bad point, but there are other good points!" then you have to acknowledge you intended it as a Gish Gallup. How about that?

 

[createdtoworship]

I gladly admit I have no clue why we are here, if there actually is a 'why'?. Thus, in regards to the apparent 'first cause' vs 'eternal' dichotomy argument, I have no 'faith.'

But I do have one minor response to chew upon...

'Almost all of our modes of critical thinking are infused with both of these ideas: that we may work from first principles, a definite starting point, counting up from zero (or one, historically); but also that we may trace the causes of things to some point, and then later ask how that starting point came to be. But the two ideas are themselves in conflict. Which is true — that infinite causal chains are impossible? Or that they are necessary? Or are they perhaps possible without being necessary?'

- Anonymous

yes, there is no logical motive for existing. If everything is as bad as athiests claim, murder, rape, and killing and war, then why would a universe or other multiverse create this universe with all the evil. If you can call God evil for doing the same exact thing, then I can call the multiverse evil. It basically wanted to create an evil world. So in conclusion there is no motive for creation, unless it is evil. And in following that principle, you must declare your multiverse evil. I don't think the world is evil, I think the world is a good thing. Evil is not a substance, it's a lack of substance, a lack of character. So God created a universe so that He can be glorified. Very selfish indeed. But in a good way. Because when we glorify Him, and honor him, all love and all virtue flows forth. We get blessed by praising Him. He made even those who Worship Him, to be blessed by that act of worship. So it's not truly selfish to want to be worshipped. It is an act that blesses us. Just like commanding someone to give the poor. In giving to those in need, we are blessed as a result. The act is not a burden anymore, but a joy.

 

[createdtoworship]

Just as I can say the very same thing about the one in which YOU first furnished

However, the point of my video was to demonstrate that there appears to exist many topics, when collectively added together, which make continued belief in Christianity, specifically, a tough pill to swallow.

No new thread necessary, as I already know all stated topics have already been exhausted. The question remains, have the theists met their burden of proof, regarding all observed counterpoints?

I think you know where I stand upon that question

a tough pill? I disagree. Again, if you have questions, browse the christian part of this forum, and see where they are addressed. Ravi Zacharius has a website that answers alot of Bible questions. Also CARM ministries. gotquestions.com is one place. If you were truly open to the Bible, you would put an effort to find out the truth. If you are truly struggling with a topic or two, I can help. But I dont' have the time to address everything in your video.

 

[createdtoworship]

In this response, I hope to kill 2 birds with one stone.

It would appear the subtlety was 'lost in translation' here...

You posted a video, I posed one back. Apparently, @Nicholas Deka doesn't want skeptics and non-believers in the claims of the Bible to post videos, which seem to represent 'gish gallops', as he feels it makes such non-believers look 'stupid'.

Before you actually respond, I wanted to make something clear; a point it would appear both of you missed...

I responded to you, to let you know I've already heard every story you might bring forth. The video was merely provided to demonstrate only (some) of the unsettling observations one must address, when attempting to reconcile this asserted belief (i.e. Christianity). Rest assure, I'm not actually 'challenging' you, or asking you to attack them, line by line. I'm instead letting (you) know, that I don't share your conclusion, and instead provided a playful video, demonstrating only some of the many topics in which I could bring up, in any future PM sessions, which would address against your yet-to-be applied assertions.

So I trust I have killed two birds with one stone:

1. You do not actually need to respond to the video, in that it was merely a playful video return exchange. But was instead hopefully provided to let you know I've already been around the block a few times, and know the scenery.
2. @Nicholas Deka does not need to feel as though I'm making his 'group' look bad.

this post is very confusing, I don't understand it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've received 30+ years of sermons. I would have to conclude there is 'nothing under the sun' in which I have not already heard from the believer's perspective. Heck, I was one for decades. But thanks.

But I would much rather hear a rational and valid argument for your specific God's existence? I would also like to see it here, in this thread so that I am not the only one to benefit from this wealth of yet-to-be-given knowledge.

Appealing to emotion surely ain't gonna do it

The fact that humans have the ability to ask the 'why' question, surely ain't gonna justify concluding not only a God, but your specific God.

So what do you got? I've got no problem having all other viewers here see what you may provide for me.

Thank you in advance!

just so you know, posting Bible difficulties is not technically in the OP. The Bible in general is not mentioned. So technically it's a way of not adressing the solid arguments offered in this thread for God.

in summary, you are poisoning the well. I created an argument for thiesm, and you responded attacking christianity. Even if christianity was wrong and the Bible a complete hoax that does not remove you from the responsibility of adressing the OP.

 

[cvanwey]

That's the intent of a Gish Gallup. To provide an argument that feels like a cumulative case that is too large and diverse to challenge in any sort of timely manner. You know that no one is going to bother creating a multitude of new threads to challenge all of the separate checks, so your "argument" will sit there unchallenged.

Again, my intent was to let him know I've been there, done that. If you read the posts prior, you would see that. But you instead want to harp on something never intended. Heck, just read the post, one prior to your first response to me

I didn't watch his video.

Then how would you 'know' it's a 'gish gallop'?

Yes, Gish Gallups are poor arguments. If he is PMing you, then PM him to stop. If you present a poor argument publicly, be prepared to be called on it.

Again, not the intent. You are reading it wrong.

Let's say I want to waste my time engaging it. Are you confident enough about each and every check that no matter which one I pick, you'll be prepared to defend it? Do you think there are no checks I can't void in a post or two?

Again, you have missed the entire point. Playful response, to let him know I've already heard anything he was planning on preaching in the future. Again, read the response just prior to the one right before you decided to respond to me.

I'll make you a deal. I'll pick one check and you can argue against it. If you concede it was a bad point he made, then you retract your video and never post it again. If you do exactly what I predict and state, "Okay, that was a bad point, but there are other good points!" then you have to acknowledge you intended it as a Gish Gallup. How about that?

No. I'll make you a deal... You need to first pick one in which we both DON'T already share the same conclusion. But since you already state you don't believe the Bible, what would be the point anyways? It ain't gonna change either of our conclusion, regarding the claimed truth in Christianity...

I'm addressing individuals whom share opposite conclusions, regarding this claimed asserted holy text. I'm not interested in debating someone whom ultimately shares the same ultimate conclusion on such a topic of Christianity. (i.e.) "I don't believe your claim of truth in Christianity, because".......

 

[cvanwey]

just so you know, posting Bible difficulties is not technically in the OP. The Bible in general is not mentioned. So technically it's a way of not adressing the solid arguments offered in this thread for God.

in summary, you are poisoning the well. I created an argument for thiesm, and you responded attacking christianity. Even if christianity was wrong and the Bible a complete hoax that does not remove you from the responsibility of adressing the OP.

I've responded plenty to the argument for God's existence. I stated I have no clue if there exists intentional agency or not. But to simply assert as such, is fallacious. I'm instead in the camp of, "I don't know." I possess no faith in such, as I have not asserted as such...

But you do realize, it is not just a dichotomy, right? There exists other arguments out there...

- singular agent
- multiple agents
- eternal
- circles back on itself

BTW, PLEASE LOOK AT POST #171. Was it me or you, whom first mentioned Christianity specifically? Hint, then look at post #170.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then how would you 'know' it's a 'gish gallop'?

I didn't say his video was a Gish Gallup. I didn't say anything about his video at all other than I didn't watch it. What are you talking about?

No. I'll make you a deal... You need to first pick one in which we both DON'T already share the same conclusion. But since you already state you don't believe the Bible, what would be the point anyways? It ain't gonna change either of our conclusion, regarding the claimed truth in Christianity...

I'm addressing individuals whom share opposite conclusions, regarding this claimed asserted holy text. I'm not interested in debating someone whom ultimately shares the same ultimate conclusion on such a topic of Christianity. (i.e.) "I don't believe your claim of truth in Christianity, because".......

Ahh... Retreating before the argument is even made. First you said I could argue against them and you'd be happy to defend them, now you say you won't defend them. It's pretty clear how weak even you know that video was.

You can claim that it was intended differently in this context, but you've posted it before, so clearly you think it's a good argument overall. I'm trying to get you to argue better. You should welcome challenges to your tactics to refine them into something convincing.

 

[cvanwey]

yes, there is no logical motive for existing. If everything is as bad as athiests claim, murder, rape, and killing and war, then why would a universe or other multiverse create this universe with all the evil. If you can call God evil for doing the same exact thing, then I can call the multiverse evil. It basically wanted to create an evil world. So in conclusion there is no motive for creation, unless it is evil. And in following that principle, you must declare your multiverse evil. I don't think the world is evil, I think the world is a good thing. Evil is not a substance, it's a lack of substance, a lack of character. So God created a universe so that He can be glorified. Very selfish indeed. But in a good way. Because when we glorify Him, and honor him, all love and all virtue flows forth. We get blessed by praising Him. He made even those who Worship Him, to be blessed by that act of worship. So it's not truly selfish to want to be worshipped. It is an act that blesses us. Just like commanding someone to give the poor. In giving to those in need, we are blessed as a result. The act is not a burden anymore, but a joy.

I already told you I'm not into sermons. (i.e.) 'So God created a universe so that He can be glorified. Very selfish indeed. But in a good way. Because when we glorify Him, and honor him, all love and all virtue flows forth. We get blessed by praising Him. He made even those who Worship Him, to be blessed by that act of worship. So it's not truly selfish to want to be worshipped. It is an act that blesses us. Just like commanding someone to give the poor. In giving to those in need, we are blessed as a result. The act is not a burden anymore, but a joy.'

I'm also not interested in the moral argument for God's existence, unless you want to create a new thread: (i.e.) 'If everything is as bad as athiests claim, murder, rape, and killing and war, then why would a universe or other multiverse create this universe with all the evil. If you can call God evil for doing the same exact thing, then I can call the multiverse evil.'

Furthermore, most non-believers I'm in contact with don't talk this way...

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't say his video was a Gish Gallup. I didn't say anything about his video at all other than I didn't watch it. What are you talking about?

My bad... I was engaging in some other real arguments, and when I glossed over your response, I misread it and thought you were talking about my video. Oops! I guess I need to read yours more carefully, moving forward

Ahh... Retreating before the argument is even made. First you said I could argue against them and you'd be happy to defend them, now you say you won't defend them. It's pretty clear how weak even you know that video was.

You can claim that it was intended differently in this context, but you've posted it before, so clearly you think it's a good argument overall. I'm trying to get you to argue better. You should welcome challenges to your tactics to refine them into something convincing.

You are too funny. It's as if you only wish to cause discord, where there really should not be any...

Again, first, find an argument where you and I disagree upon. Then, if one of us being right, would convert the other one to the opposite conclusion, I.E. Christianity, then I deem it useful. Otherwise, you don't see me going around picking at others, with like-minded views, regarding their thoughts on Christianity, and 'challenging' them senselessly. That would be silly. If we both have the same conclusion, why do I care which specific argument was the most compelling for you? The answer is, I really don't. I may ask, out of curiosity... If you do, great, find someone whom wishes to engage in such. I'm challenging the ones whom instead share opposite views, I.E. Christian Apologetics.

 

[Moral Orel]

You are too funny. It's as if you only wish to cause discord, where there really should not be any...

I'm trying to get people to make good arguments and stop making bad arguments. I'm sorry you're not concerned with whether your arguments are any good or not.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm trying to get people to make good arguments and stop making bad arguments. I'm sorry you're not concerned with whether your arguments are any good or not.

Okay, I get it. I agree it is a 'bad' argument if that was my intent. But it wasn't my intent. It is as if you are ignoring my acknowledgement that it would have been bad, if that is what I was actually doing. But it wasn't You instead appear to want to harp on it, over and over, and seem to have an axe to grind, to boot.

I understand this entire topic is passionate. But seriously, tone it down a notch Save it for the intended audience, the apologists. The ones you too also question.

If you seriously look at the context, in which I sent it, you might deduce as such..

Christian apologists are here to defend their faith. I'm simply providing my fare share. Just as you are... for whatever reason(s) you/I see fit...

And in this case, doing so, by providing a video to preemptively shut down any future sermons to come. Also, to let him know this isn't my first rodeo. That I have thought about many vexing topics.

I do get your objective... You are in the hunt for 'bad arguments'. Okay, great. I get that. But to then want to 'challenge' not the 'gish gallop', but to systematically go after the individual arguments within them, seems odd. We already both doubt the claims of the Bible. What would be the point?

Sure, you might not find a convincing case for argument 'C', and I may present a strong one in argument 'J'. But at the end of the day, I'm not here to waste my time arguing minutiae, in the sense that we both ultimately conclude the same end point anyways (i.e.) 'I'm unconvinced as to the assertions of Christianity'...

 

[createdtoworship]

I've responded plenty to the argument for God's existence. I stated I have no clue if there exists intentional agency or not. But to simply assert as such, is fallacious. I'm instead in the camp of, "I don't know." I possess no faith in such, as I have not asserted as such...

But you do realize, it is not just a dichotomy, right? There exists other arguments out there...

- singular agent
- multiple agents
- eternal
- circles back on itself

BTW, PLEASE LOOK AT POST #171. Was it me or you, whom first mentioned Christianity specifically? Hint, then look at post #170.

so then where did the universe come from? no where? I ask this too prod a question of you. Did the universe self create itself, or did the universe get created by a multiverse that never had a beginning and has intelligence to create another universe (fatally similiar to theism)? or what?

 

[Moral Orel]

I do get your objective... You are in the hunt for 'bad arguments'. Okay, great. I get that. But to then want to 'challenge' not the 'gish gallop', but to systematically go after the individual arguments within them, seems odd.

I challenged it because that was what you invited him to do.

Remember, this is what you said:

So I simply issue you with the provided challenge below.

Then you tell him:

Rest assure, I'm not actually 'challenging' you, or asking you to attack them, line by line.

You issued a challenge, but you're not actually challenging him? Why are you putting "challenge" in quotes anyways? It's your word, you don't have to "" yourself, you know.

And you can't challenge a Gish Gallup as a whole, it has to be challenged point by point because all it is is a collection of points. It isn't one cohesive piece, that's why it's shoddy argumentation. If you think it's odd that I would challenge the points individually, you still don't know what's going on.

 

[gaara4158]

so then where did the universe come from? no where? I ask this too prod a question of you. Did the universe self create itself, or did the universe get created by a multiverse that never had a beginning and has intelligence to create another universe (fatally similiar to theism)? or what?

No one knows. That’s the answer. No one knows. Now, how do we get from “no one knows” to “it’s more probable that God did it?”

 

[createdtoworship]

No one knows. That’s the answer. No one knows. Now, how do we get from “no one knows” to “it’s more probable that God did it?”

the universe was either made by someone or something, or it made itself? Or was made by something that made itself (in the case of a multiverse). So at this point you can say the multiverse had no beginning and had intelligence enough to create a universe of intelligent design. But that that point it's the same as saying God did it. The multiverse at that point, has the same characteristics of God.

 

[gaara4158]

the universe was either made by someone or something, or it made itself? Or was made by something that made itself (in the case of a multiverse). So at this point you can say the multiverse had no beginning and had intelligence enough to create a universe of intelligent design. But that that point it's the same as saying God did it. The multiverse at that point, has the same characteristics of God.

But how do you know either is the case?

 

[Moral Orel]

But how do you know either is the case?

Because he isn't trying to prove Intelligent Design, ID is assumed to be true for the sake of his argument. So if we all would just assume that the universe was intelligently designed, it becomes easy for him to prove the existence of God!

 

[gaara4158]

Because he isn't trying to prove Intelligent Design, ID is assumed to be true for the sake of his argument. So if we all would just assume that the universe was intelligently designed, it becomes easy for him to prove the existence of God!

 

[createdtoworship]

But how do you know either is the case?

you are the one who said a multiverse that had no beginning was responsible, so you tell me.