• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Argument from incredulity and arguments against God's existence

BigV

Junior Member
Dec 27, 2007
1,093
267
48
USA, IL
✟49,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There are a growing number of scientists who are very well-read on evolution and yet reject it for sound reason.

Why are you not a Flat Earther?

Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity, and the Flat Earth

Whether or not there are still flat-earthers in the Creation Research Society, scientific creationism is little different from the flat earth movement. Both are based on the same kind of scientific evidence and on a more or less literal interpretation of the Bible. In fact, scientific creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate and conservative branches of a tree that has often been called Bible-Science.5 The intense hostility expressed by the scientific creationists towards the flat-earthers, does not extend to the geocentrists, who hover on the edge of respectability among scientific creationists. Indeed, though the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, the geocentrists have combined forces with liberal creationists to cast the flat-earthers into outer darkness.

Do you find yourself frustrated by Bible believing Flat Earthers? If so, you now understand Christians who embrace all science, including evolution, who are probably equally frustrated by Creationists.

Here is a link to Bible believing Evolutionists:
What is Evolutionary Creation? - Common-questions
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Of course I mean the the atheists here. Whatever your fellow believers did or did not award you is irrelevant to the point that was being addressed.
Of course you feel that way. We believers mean nothing to you.

Here's the sequence:

In post#112 you kindly said this: "I appreciate you answering my question on what kind of evidence would convince you that there was a God. I think I asked 4 or 5 atheists and I believe you are the only one to answer it. I would like to analyze each one."

You noted the lack of response from atheists, so in post #114 I offered you an explanation for that failure to respond. It was partly tongue in cheek, but I think it may contain an element of truth.

Even when I intend to compliment you, you then turn around it around as an insult to me. I intended to compliment you in answering my question. I even said I appreciated it, you turned it around and used it as a jab against me.

The post above was by Nihilist Virus and thus, via a massive piece of pseudo dyslexia I mis-remembered the name. Sorry for confusing you.

No, you were obfuscating. Dyslexia would have been "Sirus Tsilihin". Pseudo dyslexia means that you really don't have it. I seems to me another obfuscation.

Rather than accuse me of obfuscation it would be more productive to simply ask me to clarify anything I have written that seems unclear. It can be difficult to convey ones meaning clearly.

You're an adult. You should know how to do that without my help.

For example, your clarification request here is clear. Your original point/question using Dawkins not so much.

If it was not clear then why did you not ask me for clarification? I do not think you did not understand me. You were just obfuscating, again.


I neither accept, nor reject the fine tuning argument. I've used it when berating atheists for declaring that there is no evidence for a God, while recognising that it is not strong evidence. It is an interesting idea though, both scientifically and philosophically. While some have attached it to multiverse theory, I generally feel the latter is well above my pay grade.

So that's it! What I think is what of the best arguments for the existence of God, and you pass it off by just saying "it is above my pay grade"???? That is not a counter-argument at all! There is a solution for it being above your pay grade. Study it! Until you do you, how can you honestly say that there is no evidence for the existence of God?

Unfortunately, I don't follow what "explain the fined-tuned universe for life anywhere on the universe" actually means.

I understand now. You are just not as smart as you show yourself to be. Let me give you a primer on the fine-tune universe.

There are certain things that have to be just right for there to be life on this universe. That means any life at all. For instance, there was a time that the universe was just a spec and then BANG! The universe started to expand. Now, if the universe expanded too fast, no stars or planets could form. There would be just empty space. But if it expanded too slow, then everything would have been imploded upon itself by the tremendous gravity.





It seems to be missing a word or two, or perhaps one has been misstyped. It's probably not important since, as I have already noted I don't have a decided view on fine tuning.

I guess I was wrong about you. You are admitting that you are not that smart after all. You admit that studying a fine-tuned universe is above your pay grade. Well, its OK if you just cannot understand the arguments. But then you use your ignorance to say that there is no evidence for God! You need to be aware of and understand all the evidence for God before you can make that statement.

Option #1 There is only one universe and it is fine tuned by chance.

Lets just look at the expanding universe. There are gazillions of different possible speeds the the universe could expand. But only a very small range would allow the universe to exist. Suppose you were playing craps with someone. Every time your opponent rolls the dice, he gets the eight the hard way. How may times he needs to roll the dice before you conclude that the dice is loaded. If he rolled it a thousand times and he received an eight, would you accept your opponent saying that this is out of pure chance? Would you not suspect that an intelligent being, probably your opponent, doctored the dice so that he would always win?

That is how it is with the universe being fine tuned by chance. This is not like evolution, which can go different ways in adapting the universe. This is not adapting to the universe. This is whether there is a universe at all! This is gazillions of possibilities. Not only that, but there are other universal constants as well. If you think this all could be by chance then I would recommend you never to play a game chance. You would be such an easy mark.

Option#2 There is only one universe and it is fine tuned by conscious intent.

Yes! And this coupled with quantum mechanics, which says that the Mind existed before matter, makes this the most likely.

Option #3 There is no such thing as fine tuning, only - in some instances a vague appearance of it, such appearance vanishing as our knowledge increases.

Of course, it is beyond your pay-grade to determine this. This is why I mentioned Dawkins. Although I myself do not like Dawkins, he at least never said this is beyond his pay-grade. He admits there is fine-tuning. Since he an atheist, he would have loved to deny this fine tuning. But he knew he can't. Since you admit that you never even studied this, why should anyone listen to you?

Option #4 We are in one of the few universes that is fine tuned within the larger multiverse. (Such fine tuning may be the result of chance (#4a) or conscious intent (#5a)

And we have the multiverse theory. But keep in mind that there is no empirical evidence for an infinite number of parallel universes. No one has ever see one except the one we are in. And since scientists speculate that these other universe have scientific laws different than ours then there could never be a scientific experiment to prove that these are worlds exist. I has to accepted only by faith. That is not very scientific. It is no different that what we believers do. At least we are honest.

Occams Razor states that if you are presented with two explanations, you should accept the simpler explanation, and only reject it when it has been ruled out. To me, the explanation of our universe coming from an Infinite Being is far simpler than the explanation of our universe being one of an infinite number of universes. So I opt for the simpler, more straight-forward one.

There are probably further options that could be added. Now I don't think the human species yet has the information and perhaps not even the intellect to determine which of these options is real, so it is most certainly beyond my capacity to even attempt such a thing.

And yet you are certain that a Christian God does not exist.


I made no claim, hypothetical or otherwise to being holy. I fail to see what your remarks on perfection have to do with the hypothetical possibility of God using unholy, Average Joe's, such as myself as tools.

I am using how God has used people in the past, as recorded in the Bible and in the history of the Church. Remember, the argument was never intended to be about any kind of God but only a Christian God. A Christian God would not be interested in appearing to you.

Since you say you that studied the Bible, you must be aware of the Elect. Some are the Elect, some are not. Calvinists would take this in a strict sense that God arbitrarily choose some and reject the rest. Arminians and Catholics believe in free will. God will make Himself known to the Elect. I have talked to many of the Elect. Some came miraculously to know Christ. Some just have an inner knowing. You have neither. You take it to mean that there is no Christian God. I take it to mean that you are not part of the Elect. I could be wrong. Maybe in the future you will believe and show that you are part of the Elect. But currently that does not appear to be the case.
You seem to have misunderstood me. You asked me several days ago what would convince me there was a God. It wasn't a question I had considered in that format before. I wished to be courteous and give you a reply so I threw out some ideas off the top of my head and am now being given the third degree over them.
I cannot help it that you think off the top of your head.
My expectation has been for many years that if God existed then evidence would emerge in unanticipated ways from the character of the universe, but I can't list an unanticipated way, for obvious reasons. Fine Tuning is perhaps an example of the sort of thing, but we've already seen it's too uncertain. That's why I threw in the coded message in the DNA. Same rough ball park as Fine Tuning.

But how do you know that a space alien did not implant the DNA message?
You say "There is really nothing that would convince you." Not so far. And of course, if there is no God, then there cannot be any convincing evidence of his existence. But I shall keep an open mind and examine anything new that emerges on the subject.
I am only talking of hypothetical evidence. You understood me. You cited a message in our DNA. Of course, that does not exist. So to throw in "Not so far" is another example of obfuscation. Both of us understood that this was only hypothetical. You just now throw this out because you sense you are losing the argument.

It is not just that there is no evidence. There is no hypothetical evidence that you would accept. It is like a jury already thinking the guy is guilty before hearing the evidence.

Of course I don't deny the double slit experiment. I do question your cherry picking of opinions on what it signifies, and a like approach to quotations from scientists.
And yet to still give no indication that you do understand it.

This is another example that do deny any evidence contrary to your opinions. You have presented no quotes from quantum scientists that would contradict my quotes. You have not attempted to show where I am wrong. If I am so wrong then it should not be difficult to show it.

But I guess it is beyond your pay-grade.

May I remind you that I am an agnostic. I very certain of my uncertainty in regard to the existence or non-existence of a deity. It is the Christian God, at least as represented by Christians today, to whom I adopt an atheistic stance.

This is specious. You accept the possibility of a God, as long as it is not a Christian God.

I deleted a bunch more material here. I've spent too much time plumbing the depths with you. I'm going to the surface to breath in the fresh air of reality. Cheers.

Without a Christian God, there is no fresh air of reality. All is left is nihilism - life is meaningless. All that waits you is the darkness of death. There is no fresh air. And if it turns out that the Christian God exists, it will be worse than that. And you will know it for all eternity. But then it will be too late.

I will remember you in my prayers.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Why are you not a Flat Earther?


For the record, I do not believe in the flat earth nor creationism.

But even though I do not believe in evolution, that does not mean that I do not think that creationists make some good points.

Do you find yourself frustrated by Bible believing Flat Earthers? If so, you now understand Christians who embrace all science, including evolution, who are probably equally frustrated by Creationists.

Friend, you are preaching to the choir. I am a Bible-believing evolutionist.
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Mad Scientist
May 19, 2019
4,476
4,966
Pacific NW
✟305,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
No, because He must allow free will in order for spiritual growth to occur as I stated above. Therefore some are going to freely choose to do evil and therefore they must be punished because He is just.

I tend to agree with that outlook. Enjoyment and suffering are flip sides of the same coin. They contrast each other. We are able to recognize the existence of both due to free will. Removing suffering entirely would effectively require removing free will.

As long as the suffering is temporary, it can provide that contrast, and be consistent with a fully loving God. It's only if the suffering isn't temporary that there is a real problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed1wolf
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟102,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Just thought I'd respond to this bit.
Without a Christian God, there is no fresh air of reality. All is left is nihilism - life is meaningless. All that waits you is the darkness of death. There is no fresh air. And if it turns out that the Christian God exists, it will be worse than that. And you will know it for all eternity. But then it will be too late.
Unsubstantiated assertions, followed by the flawed Pascal's Wager argument.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Just thought I'd respond to this bit.

Unsubstantiated assertions, followed by the flawed Pascal's Wager argument.

I agree it was just an assertion. But I was responding to a parting atheist's post about his leaving our discussion for some "fresh air of reality". Since his "fresh air of reality" comment was an unsubstantiated assertion, I felt it appropriate to only give an assertion from a Christian perspective.

Also, you gave an unsubstantiated assertion that Pascal's Wager is flawed. So practice what you preach.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I agree it was just an assertion. But I was responding to a parting atheist's post about his leaving our discussion for some "fresh air of reality". Since his "fresh air of reality" comment was an unsubstantiated assertion, I felt it appropriate to only give an assertion from a Christian perspective.

Also, you gave an unsubstantiated assertion that Pascal's Wager is flawed. So practice what you preach.
Do you have a rational support for Pascal's Wager beyond appeals to faith being a virtue or the like, which would be question begging? Or is it possible you don't even understand the basis for Pascal's Wager in the first place? Even honest Christians I've engaged with tend far more to consider Pascal's Wager little more than an attempt to convince the skeptical with what amounts to spitting in God's face by thinking it only cares about actions and going through the motions rather than sincere faith in itself
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I tend to agree with that outlook. Enjoyment and suffering are flip sides of the same coin. They contrast each other. We are able to recognize the existence of both due to free will. Removing suffering entirely would effectively require removing free will.

As long as the suffering is temporary, it can provide that contrast, and be consistent with a fully loving God. It's only if the suffering isn't temporary that there is a real problem.
But then we have the question I've heard that brings up genuine problems: is there free will in heaven? If free will can just as easily, if not more often, cause sin, and sin cannot logically exist in heaven by general theology, then free will cannot probably exist either for that reason, unless it's been so curtailed it might as well not be qualitatively the same at all
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Without a Christian God, there is no fresh air of reality. All is left is nihilism - life is meaningless. All that waits you is the darkness of death.
You'd have to actually substantiate that rather than speaking as if it's a matter of fact. Non Christians don't tend towards nihilism, or you'd be claiming that Islam, which believes in an afterlife, is somehow nihilistic, rather than spiritually wrong in how it approaches God and the afterlife. And that's just one example that doesn't need to resort to your stereotyping of atheism as equivalent to and necessarily nihilistic

Meaning is not contingent on permanence of existence and the mere fact of death does not make anyone's life less meaningful, a whole discussion I recall having with someone I'm surprised I haven't ignored that continued to assert a line of thought that conflated eternity with substantial meaning rather than illusory transient and hollow meaning, with no real appeal beyond what "seemed" common sense to them
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Mad Scientist
May 19, 2019
4,476
4,966
Pacific NW
✟305,905.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
But then we have the question I've heard that brings up genuine problems: is there free will in heaven? If free will can just as easily, if not more often, cause sin, and sin cannot logically exist in heaven by general theology, then free will cannot probably exist either for that reason, unless it's been so curtailed it might as well not be qualitatively the same at all

Yeah, I haven't really heard a consistent view on that from Christians. I'd assume that sin could exist in Heaven, hence the possibility of fallen angels and all that, but there would just be far less opportunity or incentive for it, due to lack of material world vices. Maybe. Heaven is such a vague concept.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Do you have a rational support for Pascal's Wager beyond appeals to faith being a virtue or the like, which would be question begging? Or is it possible you don't even understand the basis for Pascal's Wager in the first place? Even honest Christians I've engaged with tend far more to consider Pascal's Wager little more than an attempt to convince the skeptical with what amounts to spitting in God's face by thinking it only cares about actions and going through the motions rather than sincere faith in itself

Pascal's Wager is just a fear tactic to me. I do not think it proves the existence of God, and I am not sure it was intended to be. I will keep on using as long as it works. I know it works because of the reactions of atheists. A new argument from many atheists is that even if the Christian God exists, they are sure that God would not send them to hell. That proves to me that it is working.

For me, if it turns out that the Islamic God exists instead of the Christian God, I have no problem at all admitting that under that scenario I would go to hell. I don't think any Christian would have a problem with that. But many atheists today are so scared of going to hell that have to convince themselves that a Christian God, if He would exist, would not send them to hell. So this shows that many atheists are really scared at that. One atheist even told me that that churches should provide "exit counseling" for those who turn to atheism! This shows to me that atheists do not have the courage of their convictions. So until they have that courage, I will use it.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Yeah, I haven't really heard a consistent view on that from Christians. I'd assume that sin could exist in Heaven, hence the possibility of fallen angels and all that, but there would just be far less opportunity or incentive for it, due to lack of material world vices. Maybe. Heaven is such a vague concept.

They don't even tend to agree about the nature of angels, let alone if they can fall, because their nature can be argued to be such that they cannot disobey God, (might be more Islamic, I'm not sure)

The problem is as much how wish fulfilling heaven is as a concept as the ignotum per ignotius method used, saying that heaven is a mystery, but solving it by appealing to God, the bigger mystery beyond even that, because heaven is a concept outside of Christianity as well.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Pascal's Wager is just a fear tactic to me. I do not think it proves the existence of God, and I am not sure it was intended to be. I will keep on using as long as it works. I know it works because of the reactions of atheists. A new argument from many atheists is that even if the Christian God exists, they are sure that God would not send them to hell. That proves to me that it is working.

For me, if it turns out that the Islamic God exists instead of the Christian God, I have no problem at all admitting that under that scenario I would go to hell. I don't think any Christian would have a problem with that. But many atheists today are so scared of going to hell that have to convince themselves that a Christian God, if He would exist, would not send them to hell. So this shows that many atheists are really scared at that. One atheist even told me that that churches should provide "exit counseling" for those who turn to atheism! This shows to me that atheists do not have the courage of their convictions. So until they have that courage, I will use it.

Oh, so you literally don't care about fallacies in your reasoning, just the functional and practical benefits that convince some people? That's not dishonest at all.

Honestly cannot say I've heard such an argument and it's not a good one in my estimation, because it plays into the Christian's hands far more than pointing out the moral hypocrisy the deity engages in while claiming the moral high ground

That's a major assumption you'd have to back up: I don't have fear of hell, maybe death in a general sense, but hell assumes such an afterlife already exists or is somehow more likely, neither of which is supported by pretty much any evidence

You don't get to fallaciously conclude atheists are afraid of hell based on the strawman you create or the mischaracterization you insinuate on someone based on that argument, that isn't your prerogative, because that's trying to assume someone's mental state and motivations rather than focusing on the content of the arguments. Dealing in rhetoric and trying to manipulate someone emotionally is intellectually lazy

Atheists don't have a conviction that God doesn't exist, you're strawmanning yet again. There isn't necessarily a conviction in regards to atheism so much as there is an intellectual honesty and humility Christians often lack in being able to say, "I don't know and am not convinced by these arguments, because they're relying on faulty logic and weak evidence". They're not saying they know for certain, that uncertainty does not always manifest in anxiety and such, but that anxiety is not an indication that someone is in denial or such, more that they have to work past indoctrination into an abusive religious system that tells them they are worthless apart from believing in and prostrating before a God that threatens them with punishment for not conforming to whatever expectations they have
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, so you literally don't care about fallacies in your reasoning, just the functional and practical benefits that convince some people? That's not dishonest at all.

I never admitted to any fallacies in my reasoning. You are putting words in my mouth. I have reasons for you to believe. But you will not be motivated to listen without some good old-fashioned fear of God.

Honestly cannot say I've heard such an argument and it's not a good one in my estimation, because it plays into the Christian's hands far more than pointing out the moral hypocrisy the deity engages in while claiming the moral high ground

Moral high ground? Is the global warming the moral high ground? We must spend 60+ trillion dollars, that would cripple our economy and make us a third-world country, BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT DO THAT WE ARE GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS! And Trump is colluding with Russia. If we do not impeach him he sell Alaska to Russia! AND WE WILL ALL DIE IN TWELVE YEARS!

Anyway, it is not an argument. I said that fear of judgment is not an argument that God exists. It may be an argument to think long and hard about it - because if you are right then you will never know but if I am right you will know it. The best you can hope for is that you will become worm food and that is it.

Anyway, I do not understand what you, an atheist mean by "moral high ground". I thought atheists believe that morality is just a social construct. If that is the case, then what is moral for you may not be moral for me. Now, I myself believe in objective morality. But since you do not believe in God, I do not see how you can throw terms around like "moral high ground" or "moral hypocrisy". How do you determine these things? Is there an objective standard? And what is the evidence for that standard?

That's a major assumption you'd have to back up: I don't have fear of hell, maybe death in a general sense, but hell assumes such an afterlife already exists or is somehow more likely, neither of which is supported by pretty much any evidence

I was in a near-fatal accident. While it was happening, I was not scared even a little bit. That is because I know that I am going to heaven. And it probably saved my life. I was calm enough to avoid getting killed. I am almost 67 years old. I doubt I will live much longer. I am not worried at all at death. But as the saying goes: there are no atheists in foxholes. Your fear of death is not going to get easier.

I have a surprisingly lack of fear of death because of my love for God, and a healthy amount of fear of God as well. This makes me not fear other things, especially the fear of death. I know that the best is yet to come for me. I will soon be in heaven with the God whom I adore. You have no hope. That is why you fear death. You will be either just dust or in hell. Neither one is a pleasant thought. This is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument to listen carefully to the argument for the existence of God.

No other animal fears its own mortality. A bird does not ponder it. Neither does a dog. Only mankind does. So if there is no God then nature has played a cruel joke on us. How can we be the highest species in evolution when we are the only ones who fear our own deaths? We seek meaning in a meaningless world. How are we better off than the other species? How can we be the most adapted species to this world when we seek meaning and immortality in a meaningless world that gives nothing but non-existence at the end?


You don't get to fallaciously conclude atheists are afraid of hell based on the strawman you create or the mischaracterization you insinuate on someone based on that argument, that isn't your prerogative, because that's trying to assume someone's mental state and motivations rather than focusing on the content of the arguments. Dealing in rhetoric and trying to manipulate someone emotionally is intellectually lazy

Of course I have a right to that. Here in the U.S. we are free to think and say what we think.

Atheists themselves convince me that they are scared of hell. The atheist Thomas Nagel admitted that he and other atheists are scared of hell. Your own actions convince me that you are scared. If you were not scared you would say "Hey, of course if it turns out that the Christian God exists that I am going to hell!". But you cannot admit that because it scares you. You cling to hope that even if you are wrong that God would be good sport and still would let you in heaven.




Atheists don't have a conviction that God doesn't exist, you're strawmanning yet again.


Not at all. I can admit that if the Islamic God exists then I am going to hell. I can say that because I am convinced that the Islamic God does not exist. So I can say this without losing sleep over it. If you really believe that the Christian God does not exists, then you would have no qualms to say that if hypothetically this God does exist that you would go to hell.

The atheist Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion that if God does exist that he is sure that God would let him in heaven. So if Dawkins can think hypothetically about God's existence then there is no reason for you to not to think that way as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
If evil necessarily results from freewill and God wants to eliminate evil, seems to me that logically follows that God wants to eliminate freewill to a great degree, if not entirely, because then we cannot choose evil
No, evil does not NECESSARILY result from free will. But by creating beings with free will he left open the possibility of evil. And unfortunately some choose evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: packermann
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟102,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I never admitted to any fallacies in my reasoning. You are putting words in my mouth. I have reasons for you to believe. But you will not be motivated to listen without some good old-fashioned fear of God.



Moral high ground? Is the global warming the moral high ground? We must spend 60+ trillion dollars, that would cripple our economy and make us a third-world country, BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT DO THAT WE ARE GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS! And Trump is colluding with Russia. If we do not impeach him he sell Alaska to Russia! AND WE WILL ALL DIE IN TWELVE YEARS!

Anyway, it is not an argument. I said that fear of judgment is not an argument that God exists. It may be an argument to think long and hard about it - because if you are right then you will never know but if I am right you will know it. The best you can hope for is that you will become worm food and that is it.

Anyway, I do not understand what you, an atheist mean by "moral high ground". I thought atheists believe that morality is just a social construct. If that is the case, then what is moral for you may not be moral for me. Now, I myself believe in objective morality. But since you do not believe in God, I do not see how you can throw terms around like "moral high ground" or "moral hypocrisy". How do you determine these things? Is there an objective standard? And what is the evidence for that standard?



I was in a near-fatal accident. While it was happening, I was not scared even a little bit. That is because I know that I am going to heaven. And it probably saved my life. I was calm enough to avoid getting killed. I am almost 67 years old. I doubt I will live much longer. I am not worried at all at death. But as the saying goes: there are no atheists in foxholes. Your fear of death is not going to get easier.

I have a surprisingly lack of fear of death because of my love for God, and a healthy amount of fear of God as well. This makes me not fear other things, especially the fear of death. I know that the best is yet to come for me. I will soon be in heaven with the God whom I adore. You have no hope. That is why you fear death. You will be either just dust or in hell. Neither one is a pleasant thought. This is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument to listen carefully to the argument for the existence of God.

No other animal fears its own mortality. A bird does not ponder it. Neither does a dog. Only mankind does. So if there is no God then nature has played a cruel joke on us. How can we be the highest species in evolution when we are the only ones who fear our own deaths? We seek meaning in a meaningless world. How are we better off than the other species? How can we be the most adapted species to this world when we seek meaning and immortality in a meaningless world that gives nothing but non-existence at the end?




Of course I have a right to that. Here in the U.S. we are free to think and say what we think.

Atheists themselves convince me that they are scared of hell. The atheist Thomas Nagel admitted that he and other atheists are scared of hell. Your own actions convince me that you are scared. If you were not scared you would say "Hey, of course if it turns out that the Christian God exists that I am going to hell!". But you cannot admit that because it scares you. You cling to hope that even if you are wrong that God would be good sport and still would let you in heaven.







Not at all. I can admit that if the Islamic God exists then I am going to hell. I can say that because I am convinced that the Islamic God does not exist. So I can say this without losing sleep over it. If you really believe that the Christian God does not exists, then you would have no qualms to say that if hypothetically this God does exist that you would go to hell.

The atheist Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion that if God does exist that he is sure that God would let him in heaven. So if Dawkins can think hypothetically about God's existence then there is no reason for you to not to think that way as well.
We are on a debating forum right now. And you are not just admitting that you are using fallacious reasoning, you are revelling in it.

Please save speeches and sermons for other parts of C.F. where they belong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
No, evil does not NECESSARILY result from free will. But by creating beings with free will he left open the possibility of evil. And unfortunately some choose evil.
Not sure what else you can call evil except that which has a malicious will involved: someone dying in an accident doesn't entail evil, it entails suffering, which is not strictly evil in its quality

You making the mere assertion is insufficient to substantiate any real moral theory as to what the ontology and causality of evil is if not freewill. What else is it then? I've rarely, if ever, heard evil not described in terms of a capacity to choose.
 
Upvote 0

muichimotsu

I Spit On Perfection
May 16, 2006
6,529
1,648
38
✟106,458.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I never admitted to any fallacies in my reasoning. You are putting words in my mouth. I have reasons for you to believe. But you will not be motivated to listen without some good old-fashioned fear of God.

I didn't claim you did, I said you don't care even if someone pointed them out, you're all about seeming convincing rather than being intellectually honest. And fear of an imaginary entity is superstition and nonsense, unlike a fear of something real, like that I will die


Moral high ground? Is the global warming the moral high ground? We must spend 60+ trillion dollars, that would cripple our economy and make us a third-world country, BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT DO THAT WE ARE GOING TO DIE IN 12 YEARS! And Trump is colluding with Russia. If we do not impeach him he sell Alaska to Russia! AND WE WILL ALL DIE IN TWELVE YEARS!

Yeah, put positions in my mouth I never asserted, that's helping you to seem genuine and not just scrapping for a fight
Anyway, it is not an argument. I said that fear of judgment is not an argument that God exists. It may be an argument to think long and hard about it - because if you are right then you will never know but if I am right you will know it. The best you can hope for is that you will become worm food and that is it.

No, I can "hope" there's some afterlife, but the evidence doesn't suggest it. Problem is you aren't seeming to care about evidence in the slightest, just rhetorical spin about vague notions. And again, you fail to even see the contradiction in your thought because you're already fixated on seeming convincing rather than critically examining the argument and criticisms of it. If I'm right, I lose nothing, if you're right, I still lose nothing, because I made an effort to affect genuine change and do good for itself, not for a reward from a deity


Anyway, I do not understand what you, an atheist mean by "moral high ground". I thought atheists believe that morality is just a social construct. If that is the case, then what is moral for you may not be moral for me. Now, I myself believe in objective morality. But since you do not believe in God, I do not see how you can throw terms around like "moral high ground" or "moral hypocrisy". How do you determine these things? Is there an objective standard? And what is the evidence for that standard?

No, you're utterly mischaracterizing based on stereotypes, so again, you're only undermining your own point, showing that you just quote mine and otherwise cherry pick to serve your preconceptions about atheism to be true rather than admit you could be wrong.

I don't believe in objective moral, I believe in objective moral standards, because, surprise, objective has more than one meaning which you don't seem to be aware of. Objectivity in epistemology can be seeking the most unbiased position given arguments possible, you're seeking objectivity in a metaphysical sense alongside epistemology, wanting something to be true and asserting it as such even though you cannot demonstrate it anymore than I can demonstrate that my senses are 100% reliable (they're not, especially in low light like most people)

You're derailing and throwing a red herring out, that's not germane to this particular topic, I've discussed morality having a demonstrable and rational basis without God already, I'm not falling further into your rhetorical trap



I was in a near-fatal accident. While it was happening, I was not scared even a little bit. That is because I know that I am going to heaven. And it probably saved my life. I was calm enough to avoid getting killed. I am almost 67 years old. I doubt I will live much longer. I am not worried at all at death. But as the saying goes: there are no atheists in foxholes. Your fear of death is not going to get easier.

Your beliefs about some future afterlife are irrelevant as a factor in regards to your survival, at best you're correlating something that's barely pertinent to the context, given I know virtually nothing about the situation and would need an expert that knows what they're talking about to even judge how dangerous your accident supposedly was. But your survival is still not any indication of the truth of your beliefs merely because it fits your preconception

I didn't claim my fear of death was gone and your absurd adage is incorrect, because there are demonstrable examples of atheists fighting in the military and not becoming theists after the fact, so you're already effectively wrong, the best you can do is goalpost shift to suggest they're not atheists or some other nonsense

I have a surprisingly lack of fear of death because of my love for God, and a healthy amount of fear of God as well. This makes me not fear other things, especially the fear of death. I know that the best is yet to come for me. I will soon be in heaven with the God whom I adore. You have no hope. That is why you fear death. You will be either just dust or in hell. Neither one is a pleasant thought. This is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument to listen carefully to the argument for the existence of God.

You realize a lack of fear is far more irrational than possessing a fear and facing it, right? Or do you really think that being fearless is equivalent to having courage?

And you don't "fear" God in the sense one fears death, you revere it. Unless you ARE admitting you are afraid of God because of the effective threats it presents to your credulous mind in regards to the afterlife and how you should fall in line. I'm not so naive to simplify the idea of fear, I'm aware of the distinction apologists make in regards to fear of a god versus fear of death and such

I don't need your hope to not fear death, but, as I already noted, my fear of death is not the same as despair or such. I can accept death as a part of nature and not have to deny that I'm afraid or such things, utterly irrational and insane (buying into FDR's notion of fearing fear itself, which arguably just encourages reckless abandon and foolishness)

False dichotomy and hasty generalization that my feelings about death make ANY difference as to the reality of what happens afterwards, double threat of fallacies

No other animal fears its own mortality. A bird does not ponder it. Neither does a dog. Only mankind does. So if there is no God then nature has played a cruel joke on us. How can we be the highest species in evolution when we are the only ones who fear our own deaths? We seek meaning in a meaningless world. How are we better off than the other species? How can we be the most adapted species to this world when we seek meaning and immortality in a meaningless world that gives nothing but non-existence at the end?

What is it with putting words in my mouth? I never claimed other animals feared their mortality and you're anthropomorphizing nature, which reflects the irrational tendencies you still engage in and consider yourself "rational"

We aren't the highest species in evolution, that's not remotely how that works, because it isn't a competition in that respect. We might be more evolved in mental capacity, but that is what allowed our particular population to survive and evolve over vast generations, that doesn't mean we are more evolved in physical capacity, a cat can see better in the dark, can hear better, can smell better, can survive better in cold climates. You're assuming you have knowledge about something based on the misinformation spread by others and seem incapable of critically examining those things further, just accept them as truth, credulous and simplistic

I don't even need to address the rest, because you're conflating evolution with purpose, which is not what any scientist remotely does. My search for meaning is due to being a thinking entity, not because of my evolution




Of course I have a right to that. Here in the U.S. we are free to think and say what we think.

Atheists themselves convince me that they are scared of hell. The atheist Thomas Nagel admitted that he and other atheists are scared of hell. Your own actions convince me that you are scared. If you were not scared you would say "Hey, of course if it turns out that the Christian God exists that I am going to hell!". But you cannot admit that because it scares you. You cling to hope that even if you are wrong that God would be good sport and still would let you in heaven.
You have the right only insofar that others can rightly criticize an point out how wrong you demonstrably are. And again, you quote mine, this is pathetic attempts at arguments.

Not to mention you try to assume you know my state of mind, which I have not done in regards to your mentality in remotely any conclusive notion, it's provisional at best that you're deluded

No, I definitively said I did NOT claim that if heaven was real, God would put me there, because I'm not that dishonest to try and spin your bible to say otherwise. It pretty much reduces salvation to belief and, unfortunately, I'm not foolish enough to just believe based on dogmatic authority and threats, so I'm going to hell, but I'll have good company if it is the case, rather than self righteous sanctimonious sycophants who try to assume how others believe based on their preconceptions instead of, you know, looking at them as individuals.






Not at all. I can admit that if the Islamic God exists then I am going to hell. I can say that because I am convinced that the Islamic God does not exist. So I can say this without losing sleep over it. If you really believe that the Christian God does not exists, then you would have no qualms to say that if hypothetically this God does exist that you would go to hell.

The atheist Richard Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion that if God does exist that he is sure that God would let him in heaven. So if Dawkins can think hypothetically about God's existence then there is no reason for you to not to think that way as well.

You believe it, you have no evidence for your own God that isn't inferential and fallacious, far as you've presented.

I don't believe it doesn't exist, I'm not convinced by any evidence put forward in support of its existence, the burden of proof and claim is not on me.

This isn't the simple discussion you make it out to be, but you're so ridiculously stubborn and sticking to talking points, it's not wonder you can't see the rhetorical trap you put yourself in by fallaciously generalizing me based on the words of other atheists. If I used your logic, I might as well just lump you along with Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, but I don't, because I don't generalize or take the words of one and apply them to someone who may very well not agree. Crazy idea, right? Looking at people on their own instead of fitting them into compartmentalized boxes in your deluded mind?
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,446
375
72
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟53,345.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
We are on a debating forum right now. And you are not just admitting that you are using fallacious reasoning, you are revelling in it.

Please save speeches and sermons for other parts of C.F. where they belong.


Show the exact quote where I wrote "I admit that I am using fallacious reasoning".
 
Upvote 0