Godlessness and choice

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm happy you're interested in seeing arguments for the existence of God.

Im confident that the atheists here have heard all the arguments.

I think for you and I, it would be better if we came to some sort of agreement first on what type of argument it would take for you to abandon atheism for theism. What makes an argument good or bad to you? I think first, an argument needs to be logically valid. I secondly think that the premises need to be more plausibly true than their opposites.

Do you agree with those two?

I would just say that an argument is convincing if its sound.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm happy you're interested in seeing arguments for the existence of God. I think for you and I, it would be better if we came to some sort of agreement first on what type of argument it would take for you to abandon atheism for theism. What makes an argument good or bad to you? I think first, an argument needs to be logically valid. I secondly think that the premises need to be more plausibly true than their opposites.

Do you agree with those two?

DP

 

[possibletarian]

The inability to traverse an actual infinite number of moments prior to the present moment simply implies that if there is such a thing as "this present moment" then the number of moments prior to said present moment cannot be infinite but finite. This would imply that time itself began at some finite point in the past, a conclusion that has been confirmed by scientific observation and a point which the author of Genesis made long before people had the means of making such scientific observations.

+1 for the Bible

And many philosophical thoughts and books before scientific observation, just because people thought time had a beginning does not make it divinely inspired.

But you waffled but didn't answer my question, why would infinity mean there could not be a present, and does that mean your god cannot exist at any present moment ?

 

[possibletarian]

I'm happy you're interested in seeing arguments for the existence of God. I think for you and I, it would be better if we came to some sort of agreement first on what type of argument it would take for you to abandon atheism for theism. What makes an argument good or bad to you? I think first, an argument needs to be logically valid. I secondly think that the premises need to be more plausibly true than their opposites.

Do you agree with those two?

Presumably your god would know what would convince people. How could anyone possibly tell you what evidence they would accept for an invisible made up creature even believers define as 'beyond human understanding'

 

[bhsmte]

But why?

The enjoyment of asking people to support their claims.

On this site, that can be highly entertaining.

 

[anonymous person]

Im confident that the atheists here have heard all the arguments.



I would just say that an argument is convincing if its sound.

In order for an argument to be sound, the premises must be true and the conclusion must follow logically from them.

Do you agree?

 

[anonymous person]

The enjoyment of asking people to support their claims.

On this site, that can be highly entertaining.

Just as I suspected. You're here to be entertained. You're not really here because you are seeking the truth.

 

[anonymous person]

And many philosophical thoughts and books before scientific observation, just because people thought time had a beginning does not make it divinely inspired.

But you waffled but didn't answer my question, why would infinity mean there could not be a present, and does that mean your god cannot exist at any present moment ?

We are not talking about infinity.

We are talking about an "actual infinite".

And no you've given no reason to think that it would follow from the inability to traverse an actual infinite that God does not exist at the present moment.

 

[anonymous person]

Presumably your god would know what would convince people. How could anyone possibly tell you what evidence they would accept for an invisible made up creature even believers define as 'beyond human understanding'

He sure does know exactly what it would take.

Your question is a loaded one by the way. If someone thinks God is an invisible made up creature of their own imagination, then I doubt they would spend time asking people for evidence for this imaginary being.

Nor have I ever claimed that God is beyond human understanding.

 

[bhsmte]

Just as I suspected. You're here to be entertained. You're not really here because you are seeking the truth.

What truth?

I am here to interact with other people who may have different views than what i currently have. Just talking to people who agree with you, gets boring.

I enjoy observing human behavior (psychology). I really dont care what certain people believe or dont believe, i fully expect people to have wide ranging beliefs. What i find most interesting, is the claims certain people make about their beliefs and how that impacts how they judge others. Then, seeing how they support their beliefs and claims.

 

[xianghua]

In order for an argument to be sound, the premises must be true and the conclusion must follow logically from them.

Do you agree?

here is my favorite argument for the existence of god:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[possibletarian]

He sure does know exactly what it would take.

Your question is a loaded one by the way. If someone thinks God is an invisible made up creature of their own imagination, then I doubt they would spend time asking people for evidence for this imaginary being.

Nor have I ever claimed that God is beyond human understanding.

So do you understand god ?

 

[possibletarian]

We are not talking about infinity.

We are talking about an "actual infinite".

And no you've given no reason to think that it would follow from the inability to traverse an actual infinite that God does not exist at the present moment.

Well does an infinite god exist in this moment ?

 

[xianghua]

Well does an infinite god exist in this moment ?

why not actually?

 

[possibletarian]

why not actually?

I don't believe in a god of course, least not in the commonly understood sense.
But you are simply asking the question I asked.

 

[possibletarian]

Just as I suspected. You're here to be entertained. You're not really here because you are seeking the truth.

What truth would that be? do you feel you have it?

Mostly i remain unconvinced, partly the reason I'm here. It must also in fairness be said some of it is amusement, the way religious people Christians, Muslims, etc try and evolve their religion, just like they have evolved their understanding of their created god of choice to fit the modern thinking.

It is stimulating and amusing, I love learning how religious minds think about the world around them.

 

[xianghua]

I don't believe in a god of course, least not in the commonly understood sense.
But you are simply asking the question I asked.

why you dont belive in god\designer? do you think that there is no evidence for his existence?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In order for an argument to be sound, the premises must be true and the conclusion must follow logically from them.

Do you agree?

That's the definition of "sound" in this context.

 

[anonymous person]

That's the definition of "sound" in this context.

Do you agree with my view that when it comes to the premises in an argument, they must be merely more plausibly true than their negation?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Do you agree with my view that when it comes to the premises in an argument, they must be merely more plausibly true than their negation?

The premises must be true if the argument is to be called sound. I prefer to believe sound arguments.

Given that, I judge arguments with premises that can only be shown to be "merely more plausibly true" as unsubstantiated instead of something to believe. Having a low standard in evaluating premises inevitably leads to believing a host of incorrect things.

And before you go off on a solipsistic tangent, yes, I realize there's no way to judge a premise with 100% accuracy. But that doesn't mean that your only alternative is to accept premises that are "merely more plausibly true"