argument for god

How should we think about weird things?
User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

argument for god

Postby mirror93 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:57 am

I've read this comment on quora and I can't sleep without someone helping me to debunk this {!#%@} with a good argument

"If you can prove that you (the questioner) (or the observer) in science, does not exist, then you have proven the non existence of The God. On the contrary, God is easy to prove: Without sentience, one’s own sentience, the questioner‘s sentience, there is no issue of either proving or disproving God or anything for that matter. Right? Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience. In the questioner’s consciousness. So God must exist somewhere in THAT sentience. Somewhere in that questioner’s consciousness. Therefore The God must be made of the same material as the sentient consciousness that exists as the questioner’s consciousness. Therefore, if there is a questioner, if I, the questioner, am real, then The God is real. This is the proof of THE God.

The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it. I am happy to answer questions. It is surprisingly a thoroughly complete proof as well as the definition of God. Surprisingly, it is a logical impossibility to disprove God (because the questioner is sentient)!"

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-logically ... -Padamadan

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27746
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: argument for god

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:34 am

mirror93 wrote:God is easy to prove: Without sentience, one’s own sentience, the questioner‘s sentience, there is no issue of either proving or disproving God or anything for that matter. Right?
No. You are suggesting that prior to anything asking "Is there a god?" that it matters one way or the other. We can look way back in time to the early universe and still see no god exists.

Even more ridiculous, is that because you are unable to set out a definition of god your question is open ended to any mythical being existing.


mirror93 wrote:Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience.
No. The universe is a bit bigger and has more data than that person's brain can hold. Parts of the universe don't just not exist depending on who is thinking about it. :lol:

mirror93 wrote:So God must exist somewhere in THAT sentience. Somewhere in that questioner’s consciousness. Therefore The God must be made of the same material as the sentient consciousness that exists as the questioner’s consciousness.
See above and also understand conjuring up mythical beings in ones imagination does not make them real. Do you believe in Leprechauns? . Does that make them real?

mirror93 wrote:The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it.
Debunked in five seconds.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:46 am

Its rare to see word salad piled so high.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8617
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby Aztexan » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:31 am

Once the pile reaches a certain height, you're allowed to reclassify it.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30667
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: argument for god

Postby Gord » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:40 am

Anything you think of exists as the thought itself. That does not mean the thing you think of exists outside of your thought as well. For instance, if you imagine the most perfect apple in the world, that does not mean the exact match for your thought actually exists outside of your thought. (Once could argue that the "most perfect apple" must exist if any apples exist and if there were a proven benchmark for demonstrating perfection, but even if such an apple did exist outside of your thoughts, it would not be the apple you imagined -- they are two separate things, like a tree being compared to a drawing of a tree.)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: argument for god

Postby xouper » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:48 am

mirror93 wrote:I've read this comment on quora and I can't sleep without someone helping me to debunk this {!#%@} with a good argument

"If you can prove that you (the questioner) (or the observer) in science, does not exist, then you have proven the non existence of The God. On the contrary, God is easy to prove: Without sentience, one’s own sentience, the questioner‘s sentience, there is no issue of either proving or disproving God or anything for that matter. Right? Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience. In the questioner’s consciousness. So God must exist somewhere in THAT sentience. Somewhere in that questioner’s consciousness. Therefore The God must be made of the same material as the sentient consciousness that exists as the questioner’s consciousness. Therefore, if there is a questioner, if I, the questioner, am real, then The God is real. This is the proof of THE God.

The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it. I am happy to answer questions. It is surprisingly a thoroughly complete proof as well as the definition of God. Surprisingly, it is a logical impossibility to disprove God (because the questioner is sentient)!"

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-logically-prove-that-God-doesnt-exist/answer/Dee-Francis-Padamadan


That argument contains the fallacy called begging the question, also known as the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Here is the key assumption that makes the argument circular:


Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience.


Embedded in that initial premise is the very thing they are trying to prove.


The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it.


Took all of four and a half seconds to identify that fatal flaw in the argument.

Furthermore, as Gord observed, it is simple to demonstrate the initial premise is false. An apple does not literally exist in anyone's "sentience" (or consciousness, or mind). What exists in someone's mind is the mental concept of an apple, but not the actual apple itself. Likewise for any God. The mental concept of a God might exist is someone's mind, but not the actual God itself.

Those two reasons suffice to show the argument fails miserably.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: argument for god

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:18 am

Ah, come on Mirror. This is a science forum. I do not have to disprove anything you say. It is incumbent on you to prove your arguement or theory.

It is amazing just how many people post stuff on here but cannot even give some association, let alone causation.

On this type forum, it is up to you to support your arguement. It is not my duty to disprove your statement. If you put up some association that supports your theory, then that invites the rest of us to present evidence to disprove your theory.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8752
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: argument for god

Postby TJrandom » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:30 am

Shucks.. debunked even before we determined that Mirror was identifying Terminus with that lump atop his neck.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:31 am

...........and yet, we are all free to present ourselves as we wish to do. Personally.....I don't see the pleasure in throwing {!#%@} on a wall and seeing what happens. I'd rather build an outhouse and challenge people to tear it down..... allowing for redesign for a stronger unit. Mirror is happy to just play with what he finds in his diaper.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8617
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby Aztexan » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:58 am

I just disproved the existence of god on a religious forum. Now it's up to you to prove me right. Or wrong.
trump is Putin's bitch

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:04 am

Aztexan wrote:I just disproved the existence of god on a religious forum. Now it's up to you to prove me right. Or wrong.

WEll Done. ..........although, proof is a bit strong?

WHICH MAKES ME THINK.......about the "best"/strongest arguments against God(s). A couple of favorites come right to mind:

1. Imagine the Universe without God, only physics involved. ==>Looks like exactly what we have.
Now, Imagine the Universe with a God as variously described. ==>Look like NOTHING we have.

2. Atheism just rejects all the Religions, EXACTLY AS DO RELIGIOUS TYPES, except for that one exception they make. entirely inconsistent rules being applied to the out verus the in.

3. People mostly grow up believing in the god of their parents/culture/times. Very strong evidence its a sociological phenomenon.

I have 5 more rock solids. But I hate making lists.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: argument for god

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:51 pm

Have you looked up logical fallacies mirror? You should if you haven't already.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:10 pm

If Mirror did, he would read them all and agree but not perceive how any apply to his own situation...... because He sees God actively involved "all the time." You just have to open your heart..............
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby mirror93 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:52 pm

did you guys even clicked on the link? https://www.quora.com/Can-you-logically ... -Padamadan
It's not me who made this stupid argument, I was just looking for a good debunking

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: argument for god

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Nov 26, 2017 11:26 pm

Well, you certainly got a good debunking Mirror.

I read your link, and fair dinkum, I got giddy reading it. She certainly loves that word "Sentient". But she just goes around in circles and doesn't prove anything. Doesn't even make a good case for god.

Studied at the University of Westminster, but it doesn't say what she studied. Maybe she just studied "Sentient" which means "able to perceive or feel things" also "feeling, capable of feeling". Which I suppose describes most of us, except maybe Gorgeous, but still it doesn't prove a bloody thing.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby mirror93 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:29 am

Gord wrote:Anything you think of exists as the thought itself. That does not mean the thing you think of exists outside of your thought as well. For instance, if you imagine the most perfect apple in the world, that does not mean the exact match for your thought actually exists outside of your thought. (Once could argue that the "most perfect apple" must exist if any apples exist and if there were a proven benchmark for demonstrating perfection, but even if such an apple did exist outside of your thoughts, it would not be the apple you imagined -- they are two separate things, like a tree being compared to a drawing of a tree.)


and we can only think about an apple because we already experienced an apple in the objective world, which proves objective reality

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby mirror93 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:34 am

xouper wrote:
mirror93 wrote:I've read this comment on quora and I can't sleep without someone helping me to debunk this {!#%@} with a good argument

"If you can prove that you (the questioner) (or the observer) in science, does not exist, then you have proven the non existence of The God. On the contrary, God is easy to prove: Without sentience, one’s own sentience, the questioner‘s sentience, there is no issue of either proving or disproving God or anything for that matter. Right? Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience. In the questioner’s consciousness. So God must exist somewhere in THAT sentience. Somewhere in that questioner’s consciousness. Therefore The God must be made of the same material as the sentient consciousness that exists as the questioner’s consciousness. Therefore, if there is a questioner, if I, the questioner, am real, then The God is real. This is the proof of THE God.

The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it. I am happy to answer questions. It is surprisingly a thoroughly complete proof as well as the definition of God. Surprisingly, it is a logical impossibility to disprove God (because the questioner is sentient)!"

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-logically-prove-that-God-doesnt-exist/answer/Dee-Francis-Padamadan


That argument contains the fallacy called begging the question, also known as the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Here is the key assumption that makes the argument circular:


Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience.


Embedded in that initial premise is the very thing they are trying to prove.


The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it.


Took all of four and a half seconds to identify that fatal flaw in the argument.

Furthermore, as Gord observed, it is simple to demonstrate the initial premise is false. An apple does not literally exist in anyone's "sentience" (or consciousness, or mind). What exists in someone's mind is the mental concept of an apple, but not the actual apple itself. Likewise for any God. The mental concept of a God might exist is someone's mind, but not the actual God itself.

Those two reasons suffice to show the argument fails miserably.


btw xouper, you are here since 2005 , :shock:

by xouper
Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:17 pm
Forum: Skepticism and Critical Thinking
Topic: The plural of Octopus...

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21009
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: argument for god

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:37 am

Mirror, you are simply incompetent.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
mirror93
Poster
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby mirror93 » Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:23 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Mirror, you are simply incompetent.


thanks

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30667
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: argument for god

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:00 am

mirror93 wrote:
Gord wrote:Anything you think of exists as the thought itself. That does not mean the thing you think of exists outside of your thought as well. For instance, if you imagine the most perfect apple in the world, that does not mean the exact match for your thought actually exists outside of your thought. (Once could argue that the "most perfect apple" must exist if any apples exist and if there were a proven benchmark for demonstrating perfection, but even if such an apple did exist outside of your thoughts, it would not be the apple you imagined -- they are two separate things, like a tree being compared to a drawing of a tree.)

and we can only think about an apple because we already experienced an apple in the objective world, which proves objective reality

Not necessarily. I can think about a quortinous heffy -- even though it's mostly a random string of letters I just came up with (with some modification to make it more consistent with English [the original random string was "qortjheffj"]), I can imagine a quortinous heffy being a real thing and I can imagine it having physical properties such as blueness and a smell rather reminiscent of a cow covered in Vapor Rub. It now exists as a thought, but other than that does not really have very much to do with the objective world.

I could also conceivably find a person on the planet who had never experienced an apple in the objective world and ask them to imagine what it would be like without giving them any other information about it. Then whatever they imagined would also exist as a thought, but independent of an "objectively real" apple.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30667
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: argument for god

Postby Gord » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:03 am

mirror93 wrote:...xouper, you are here since 2005 ....

Back when the Earth was still cooling and eukaryotes ruled the Skeptics forums.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: argument for god

Postby xouper » Mon Nov 27, 2017 6:46 am

mirror93 wrote:
xouper wrote:
mirror93 wrote:btw xouper, you are here since 2005 , :shock:


I really should get a life.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 119
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: argument for god

Postby Io » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:24 am

mirror93 wrote:
Gord wrote:Anything you think of exists as the thought itself. That does not mean the thing you think of exists outside of your thought as well. For instance, if you imagine the most perfect apple in the world, that does not mean the exact match for your thought actually exists outside of your thought. (Once could argue that the "most perfect apple" must exist if any apples exist and if there were a proven benchmark for demonstrating perfection, but even if such an apple did exist outside of your thoughts, it would not be the apple you imagined -- they are two separate things, like a tree being compared to a drawing of a tree.)


and we can only think about an apple because we already experienced an apple in the objective world, which proves objective reality


Yeah, this is nonsense. Anyone can conceive a concept that is new and original and it not represent a real physical entity.
The original post is a reasonable (if cack-handed) justification for the concept of a thing existing, but not the thing itself. Replace 'God' with 'unicorns' and you can reach the same wrong conclusions.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: argument for god

Postby Cadmusteeth » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:15 pm

Basically a rehash of a very old argument for God. The ontological argument.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Aztexan wrote:I just disproved the existence of god on a religious forum. Now it's up to you to prove me right. Or wrong.

WEll Done. ..........although, proof is a bit strong?

WHICH MAKES ME THINK.......about the "best"/strongest arguments against God(s). A couple of favorites come right to mind:

1. Imagine the Universe without God, only physics involved. ==>Looks like exactly what we have.
Now, Imagine the Universe with a God as variously described. ==>Look like NOTHING we have.

2. Atheism just rejects all the Religions, EXACTLY AS DO RELIGIOUS TYPES, except for that one exception they make. entirely inconsistent rules being applied to the out verus the in.

3. People mostly grow up believing in the god of their parents/culture/times. Very strong evidence its a sociological phenomenon.

I have 5 more rock solids. But I hate making lists.


Number 4. Our Monotheistic God "evolved" from wind spirits, totems, coincidence, and multi-Gods to the Near Just a Human that knows all, sees all, controls all, and is all good. Would the God of it all really be so human??????? Anger, Revenge, Petty?????? .................... Get Real.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8617
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby Aztexan » Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:06 pm

I always wondered where god took his shits.
Then I see devout christians in this country spouting off their nonsense and then I know.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10971
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: argument for god

Postby Lance Kennedy » Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:18 am

There is a true saying that you cannot prove a negative. Thus, it is impossible to prove god does not exist.

However, there is a corollary, which is that it is a lot easier to prove a positive. So while it is impossible to prove god does not exist, it would be a doddle to prove he does, if it were true. After all, how could an omnipotent deity who created the universe possibly have done all that without leaving tracks in the sand?

Yet no one has managed to prove this. (Ignoring silly word play on what sentient means).

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:38 pm

The tracks in the sand are everything you see around you today. The easier doddle (whatever that is, I'm going by context) is if you think God actively intercedes today.........but no proof for that either unless he's got that memory wiper that Pyrrho got ahold of.....maybe that was his prayer answered?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9025
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: argument for god

Postby Poodle » Thu Dec 14, 2017 4:03 pm

So ... about this quortinous heffy ...
Would that be the version in captivity or the one in the subways of Manhattan?

User avatar
Monster
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5204
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: argument for god

Postby Monster » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:23 pm

mirror93 wrote:I've read this comment on quora and I can't sleep without someone helping me to debunk this {!#%@} with a good argument

"If you can prove that you (the questioner) (or the observer) in science, does not exist, then you have proven the non existence of The God. On the contrary, God is easy to prove: Without sentience, one’s own sentience, the questioner‘s sentience, there is no issue of either proving or disproving God or anything for that matter. Right? Everything MUST exist in that questioner’s sentience. In the questioner’s consciousness. So God must exist somewhere in THAT sentience. Somewhere in that questioner’s consciousness. Therefore The God must be made of the same material as the sentient consciousness that exists as the questioner’s consciousness. Therefore, if there is a questioner, if I, the questioner, am real, then The God is real. This is the proof of THE God.

The above definition of God can be understood if you spend time on it. I am happy to answer questions. It is surprisingly a thoroughly complete proof as well as the definition of God. Surprisingly, it is a logical impossibility to disprove God (because the questioner is sentient)!"

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-logically ... -Padamadan

This "argument" for god is saying that god exists in the universe of a person's head only. And in each and every person's head. Is that really existence? It doesn't seem so to me.

Poodle wrote:So ... about this quortinous heffy ...

Thems be good words.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:53 pm

Monster wrote:
Poodle wrote:So ... about this quortinous heffy ...

Thems be good words.

I agree........it "sounds right" but I can't even reasonably imagine what it might mean. Has an overbearing fat-itude about it, but I'm just applying that rather than finding that.

I love words.........even made up ones.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30667
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: argument for god

Postby Gord » Fri Dec 15, 2017 5:57 am

Poodle wrote:So ... about this quortinous heffy ...
Would that be the version in captivity or the one in the subways of Manhattan?

Probably.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: argument for god

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:22 am

I guess being an atheist, this argument/debate/whatever, means nothing to me. Nobody can prove existence of god, and nobody can prove non-existence of god.

So being a good little skeptic, I don't believe yes, and I don't believe no. This god person is a mirage, it is a figment of someone's imagination.

And I can't even put a rebuttal, because nobody has yet put up a "yes" argument.

So to all you good Ladies and Gents out there in forum land, stop posting sh*t unless you can at least put up some serious association, at least.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 13113
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: argument for god

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:58 am

Pho: what would you think if you had an experience such as so many believers report that God/Jesus talks to them on a personal one to one relationship. They don't believe in religion or the bible other than God/Jesus/ok---the holy ghost too but they don't know know him at all/..............other than God........is the creator or all things, is all good, and belief in him will bring eternal life. "If" you had such a personal experience.........what would you think regarding the existence of God? What would you tell others about it????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4607
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 17, 2017 1:11 pm

none of you can prove you exist...
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Cadmusteeth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 7:43 pm
Location: Colorado, USA

Re: argument for god

Postby Cadmusteeth » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:49 pm

gorgeous wrote:none of you can prove you exist...
Can you prove you exist? Or prove non of us exist?

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4607
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby gorgeous » Sun Dec 17, 2017 6:03 pm

I think therefore I am
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 8617
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: argument for god

Postby Aztexan » Sun Dec 17, 2017 7:58 pm

You am what?
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10971
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: argument for god

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 17, 2017 8:35 pm

We all know that Gorgeous am, because he, she or it writes.

Sadly, we all wish it could be otherwise.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11002
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: argument for god

Postby OlegTheBatty » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:17 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:We all know that Gorgeous am, because he, she or it writes.

Sadly, we all wish it could be otherwise.


Not all. Gorgeous is comedy gold. . . ok, not gold exactly . . . comedy silver. . . silver mixed with a bit of copper . . . that's what gorgeous is - comedy tarnished silver!
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests