Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[variant]

Classic ad hominem. Attacking the man instead of his arguments.

The post I quoted was a video of him explaining my point.

So, no, it is never ad hominem to point out and extrapolate from serious admitted flaws.

 

[Davian]

King Solomon once said that in the reading of much books is vanity and vexation. You have read a lot of books. Unfortunately, they seem to have been books full of error and falsehood.

By what methodology did you make that determination?

Pull out the Bible, open it up and let God speak to you.

Do you write letters to Santa? Why not? Do you not want free stuff?

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Not in the colloquial sense, no.

 

[Davian]

Maybe one day I can create a thread here that does not get derailed?

I hold out hope....

You could go back to post #3, just before you derailed it.

 

[Davian]

But if what I say is true, then believe it. Let that be your evidence. Let that be your proof. Let the fact that the Bible describes you perfectly be the evidence that it was inspired by the one who knows the hearts of all men, yes, even your own.

I expect that the writers of the bible were learned men, and that they would have had knowledge of the troubles had by other, previous religions, and if they "prophesied" that the untestable and poorly evidenced claims of Christianity would result in a less-than-enthusiastic reception by unbelievers, it would not really a stretch of the imagination. Christianity wasn't the first religion on the block, was it?

 

[Davian]

You honor me.

I don't think so.

I am not worthy to be counted among those great men.

Not until you can cash in on religion, as they have. Is that your intent?

I will leave you with this thought, my last post in this thread:

"Abandon thread! Women and children first! Follow me!"

You are right where you are in your life because God loves you.

Or, your god is just a character in a book. How do we tell the difference?

 

[sparow]

Evolutionarily speaking, we only need to comprehend sufficiently so as to survive as a species. More than that is simply gravy.

Perceptions of reality are created. Religions are just ritualized versions.

That is your perception. Others have other gods. Or no gods.

No, atheism is simply "I am not convinced of your perception of a god as reality"

Indeed, like there is no actual god(s) behind all of those religions to point them in a single direction.

I presume you are talking about Darwinian evolution then any comprehension derived survival would break the circle.

We are just a grey blob with peripherals dangling of it, like nose, ears eyes and fingers, how could any reality be any thing other than a perception? There is true and false, not all perceptions are true but I would suggest you do not know my perception; there are true Gods and false Gods, subject to definition.

There is only the God of Israel who created everything and who made a covenant with his creation; your lack of conviction is relevant only as far as you have excluded your self from God; and even if you believe there was a God that would not mean you were in covenant with Him.

 

[sparow]

What was excellent about it?

He had the skill to say what I would like to say but don't have the skill, I was in agreement with him.

 

[sparow]

Are you ever going to answer my question about your ideas for a better way to investigate reality?

Define reality!

 

[sparow]

It's strange for someone to end up in a discussion forum and then run away so convincingly from actual discussion.

You are not discussing anything; saying Jesus Christs does not exist on a Christian forum is not discussion it is something else; I wasn't running away I was waiting for you to say something conversational.

 

[variant]

You are not discussing anything; saying Jesus Christs does not exist on a Christian forum is not discussion it is something else; I wasn't running away I was waiting for you to say something conversational.

I don't think you have a leg to stand on in criticizing anyone's tone.

In a thread in a philosophy section of a christian forum titled "philosophical arguments against the existence of God" you don't really get to be snippy about someone suggesting that Jesus didn't exist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He had the skill to say what I would like to say but don't have the skill, I was in agreement with him.

What did you agree with specifically? Are you talking about Craig, Wolpert, or the maker of the video?

 

[KCfromNC]

You are not discussing anything; saying Jesus Christs does not exist on a Christian forum is not discussion it is something else

Astute readers will realize I never said anything of the sort and see through this attempt to mislead them.

 

[KCfromNC]

Define reality!

If one doesn't even know what reality is, they're hardly in a position to discuss the relative merits of various alternative epistemological approaches.

But I'm guessing this is more of an attempt at a distraction than an admission that the poster has an actual problem distinguishing the imaginary from reality. There's a reason no one has answered the multiple requests to provide a way to investigate the world around us which doesn't rely on assumptions of some sort. Doing so (and ultimately failing) would show how hollow the previous criticisms of science earlier in the thread really were.

 

[Davian]

I presume you are talking about Darwinian evolution then any comprehension derived survival would break the circle.

No, I am speaking of modern evolutionary theory.

We are just a grey blob with peripherals dangling of it, like nose, ears eyes and fingers, how could any reality be any thing other than a perception?

Try walking across a busy highway at night.

There is true and false, not all perceptions are true but I would suggest you do not know my perception; there are true Gods and false Gods, subject to definition.

I await your testable and falsifiable definition for "Gods".

There is only the God of Israel who created everything and who made a covenant with his creation;

So you believe.

your lack of conviction is relevant only as far as you have excluded your self from God; and even if you believe there was a God that would not mean you were in covenant with Him.

And your conviction is of no consequence to reality. But, believe as you wish.

 

[sparow]

No, I am speaking of modern evolutionary theory.

Try walking across a busy highway at night.

I await your testable and falsifiable definition for "Gods".

So you believe.

And your conviction is of no consequence to reality. But, believe as you wish.

I have never heard of modern evolutionary theory, the word theory may be meaningful, my knowledge of evolution is to do with linguistics, the old Latin word with infinite usage associated with observation not theory.

You will be waiting a long time, in the meanwhile, could you provide a testable and falsifiable definition for reality, Higgs boson and an electron.

The onus is now on you.

 

[sparow]

If one doesn't even know what reality is, they're hardly in a position to discuss the relative merits of various alternative epistemological approaches.

But I'm guessing this is more of an attempt at a distraction than an admission that the poster has an actual problem distinguishing the imaginary from reality. There's a reason no one has answered the multiple requests to provide a way to investigate the world around us which doesn't rely on assumptions of some sort. Doing so (and ultimately failing) would show how hollow the previous criticisms of science earlier in the thread really were.

I have to assume that this rhetoric means you have chucked the dummy.

 

[sparow]

What did you agree with specifically? Are you talking about Craig, Wolpert, or the maker of the video?

I do not recall specifically what Craig said but I recall agreeing with it.

 

[sparow]

I don't think you have a leg to stand on in criticizing anyone's tone.

In a thread in a philosophy section of a christian forum titled "philosophical arguments against the existence of God" you don't really get to be snippy about someone suggesting that Jesus didn't exist.

Saying Jesus didn't exist would be senseless as saying philosophy didn't exist, What does that do to your argument?

 

[Davian]

I have never heard of modern evolutionary theory, the word theory may be meaningful, my knowledge of evolution is to do with linguistics, the old Latin word with infinite usage associated with observation not theory.

You will be waiting a long time, in the meanwhile, could you provide a testable and falsifiable definition for reality, Higgs boson and an electron.

The onus is now on you.

Not at all, as you appear to have mistaken me for someone else. I am not here to promote my worldview, or champion science. I am only here to observe, and to see if religionists can come back with something other than condescension and evasion.

 

[sparow]

Not at all, as you appear to have mistaken me for someone else. I am not here to promote my worldview, or champion science. I am only here to observe, and to see if religionists can come back with something other than condescension and evasion.

Mine was a reply to post # 1754 and it appears to have your name on it. Looking back you are a major antagonist on this thread, condescending and evading. I was attempting to show by conversation that your rules not only disallow the existence of God but disallow the existence of electrons and Higg's bosons as well.