Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

And I simply say god/s do not exist. No definition needed.

That was easy.

I agree.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, I understood your post very well.

So your saying that the typical theist believes that the ontological argument is nonsense? You're giving them more credit than I would, but ok...

 

[anonymous person]

So your saying that the typical theist believes that the ontological argument is nonsense? You're giving them more credit than I would, but ok...

No.

That's not what I am saying.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

That's not what I am saying.

But the ontological argument is empty...

Ontological argument - RationalWiki

Long video, but here, philosopher Alex Malpass completely destroys apologist Matt Slick's ontological argument.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No.

That's not what I am saying.

Then, like I originally said, you didn't understand my initial post at all.

 

[anonymous person]

Then, like I originally said, you didn't understand my initial post at all.

I understand that you are here arguing for naturalism and against theism, but in order to do that, you have to cease being a naturalist. That is why I said, "spoken like a true theist."

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I understand that you are here arguing for naturalism and against theism, but in order to do that, you have to cease being a naturalist. That is why I said, "spoken like a true theist."

You realize that your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the ontological argument, right?

 

[anonymous person]

You realize that your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the ontological argument, right?

Yes I know that.

You can't talk about the ontological argument, or any argument for that matter, without being a theist. You can't talk or reason about anything actually.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Yes I know that.

You can't talk about the ontological argument, or any argument for that matter, without being a theist. You can't talk or reason about anything actually.

Of all the wrong statements I've heard recently, you win the prize for most wrong-ness.

Let's see... I don't believe in any gods, and I've spoken today. So... you're about as demonstrably wrong as a person can be.

 

[anonymous person]

Of all the wrong statements I've heard recently, you win the prize for most wrong-ness.

Let's see... I don't believe in any gods, and I've spoken today. So... you're about as demonstrably wrong as a person can be.

I didn't say that you couldn't speak and be an atheist at the same time.

 

[quatona]

Yes I know that.

You can't talk about the ontological argument, or any argument for that matter, without being a theist. You can't talk or reason about anything actually.

Oh no, not THAT again!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I didn't say that you couldn't speak and be an atheist at the same time.

Yes you most certainly did:

"You can't talk about the ontological argument, or any argument for that matter, without being a theist. You can't talk or reason about anything actually."

So either retract the statement or explain how atheists can't speak. And then try and explain how any of this relates to the ontological argument. Or were you just switching topics because you know the ontological argument is nonsense?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Oh no, not THAT again!

You don't like wordplay that tries to disguise itself as a valid argument?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I know that.

You can't talk about the ontological argument, or any argument for that matter, without being a theist. You can't talk or reason about anything actually.

Major league; LOL

 

[anonymous person]

Yes you most certainly did:

"You can't talk about the ontological argument, or any argument for that matter, without being a theist. You can't talk or reason about anything actually."

So either retract the statement or explain how atheists can't speak. And then try and explain how any of this relates to the ontological argument. Or were you just switching topics because you know the ontological argument is nonsense?

No thanks

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You don't like wordplay that tries to disguise itself as a valid argument?

The only thing worse than presuppositional apologetics is a presuppositional apologist that can't even argue or articulate their own crappy non-arguments properly.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You see, 'reason' and 'logic' are made out of magical theistic pixie dust, so you have to assume the existence of magical theistic pixie dust to use them at all.

Checkmate, atheists. Your inferior god, Athe, has failed you again.

 

[anonymous person]

Less than all cannot satisfy man.

William Blake

 

[Dave Ellis]

No sorry about that. There are really five main one's I use. The cosmological argument from contingency, the Kalam, the teleological, the moral argument, and then the argument that the resurrection hypothesis best accounts for the various historical facts regarding Jesus' death and burial and empty tomb.

Why are any of those compelling to you?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No special pleading. Since you cannot traverse an actual infinite, there must be an ultimate cause/origin for everything. God is the ultimate source/cause of rationality.

Can you demonstrate that? Or are you just going to go with the argument from bald assertion?