Sleepwalk7's forum posts

Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
[QUOTE="lx_theo"] Faith is literally defined as belief with no evidence.

No, that's not what faith is literally defined as. That's not how I define faith, anyhow. Even when I use the dictionary definition, my definition fits in nicely with the first, "1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Your example of gravity is bad.

It was good enough for David Hume. But what did he know?

If you apply it to your religious beliefs, gravity would be the universe. We know it exists. We understand a lot of how it works.

You're missing the point. You don't know if gravity will exist tomorrow. Correct? You don't know if you will exist tomorrow. You don't know if the universe will exist tomorrow. Regardless, you believe that gravity, yourself, and the universe will exist tomorrow because of your memories and past experiences. The point is that even with your memories and past experiences, you do not know with certainty that you, gravity, or the universe will exist tomorrow. Nevertheless, you commit to the belief that you, gravity and the universe will exist tomorrow. True, there's a ton of evidence that they will all exist, but there's still a degree of uncertainly. And there's uncertainty with all kinds of beliefs. If you have a girlfriend, then you believe she cares about you. You have faith that she cares about you. When it comes to God there is a ton of good arguments and evidence for His exist. So, personally, it doesn't take much for me to commit to the belief that God exists. In fact, I think it takes more faith to believe that God doesn't exist.
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] He's nothing more than an piss poor philosopher and christian theologian.

How so, HoolaHoopMan?

Yet he can't figure out the logical leap of proclaiming that the universe must have cause yet God doesn't. Derp Derp.

/facepalm. First, the argument Craig uses is called the Kalam cosmological argument. It's not really "his" argument. It's been around for awhile and it is still defended today by people who are much educated and intelligent than you. People like Alvin Plantinga. Finally, it's not, "everything has a cause," it's "everything that begins to exist has a cause." God would be a necessary being, which means He'd be an entity that didn't begin to exist. He has always existed. Derp derp
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]This seems like a pretty poor copy/paste job of some of William Lane Craig's bullshit. lx_theo
Yeah, screw that guy. Who does he think he is? "Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Academic_background Oh... Instead, we should listen to kids like HoolaHoopMan on the Off-Topic Forum on a video game website.

He got degrees in religious topics? " lol: What, was real academics to hard for him?

Philosophy is a "religious topic"? Do you kids eat stupid for breakfast or something? Even if he only had a doctorate in theology, you do realize that isn't an easy task, right? Eh, why do I bother. You probably haven't graduated from middle school yet.
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts

I'm sick of religious people trying to argue regarding proof of their religion. It's called faith, guys. Evidence isn't (nor is it supposed to be) in your favor.

KHAndAnime
I see faith as a commitment to a belief. In this sense, most people have faith in the law of gravity. What this means is they believe gravity exists and it works in a certain way. Why? Because it has existed and worked in the past (evidence). However, technically, we don't know if it will work in the future. We cannot say with any honesty that we're 100% sure gravity will exist tomorrow. So, as you can see, even with gravity there is a bit of faith. Something like evolution would require a bit more faith and the multiverse hypothesis would require even more faith (much more).
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
This seems like a pretty poor copy/paste job of some of William Lane Craig's bullshit. HoolaHoopMan
Yeah, screw that guy. Who does he think he is? "Craig received a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Wheaton College, Illinois, in 1971 and two summa cum laude master's degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, in 1975, in philosophy of religion and ecclesiastical history and in the History of Christian Thought.[1] He earned a Ph.D. in philosophy under John Hick at the University of Birmingham, England, in 1977 and a D.Theol. under Wolfhart Pannenberg at the University of Munich in 1984.[7]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Academic_background Oh... Instead, we should listen to kids like HoolaHoopMan on the Off-Topic Forum on a video game website.
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts

Your first two arguments boil down to "I don't know, therefore God" which is a shitty argument. There is no evidence for god, and asserting him as existing without evidence is illogical.

Except, that's not what the arguments boil down to. The arguments are deductions based on logic and contemporary evidence.

Your third argument, the one about morals, is based on the premise that morals must come from god, but this is false.

No, the moral argument states that without God there cannot be objective moral values. Objective moral values are moral pronouncements that are true regardless of opinion. For instance, if objective moral values did exist, then it wouldn't matter if the entire world's population believed torturing and killing babies was morally good. It would still be wrong. Just like if the entire world's population falsely believed 2 + 2 = 67, that wouldn't change the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Under an atheistic framework, where objective moral values do not exist, the same couldn't be said. Theoretically, anything goes.

Your fourth argument states that the universe is finely tuned, when it really isn't. Everything works within the confines of physics, but beyond that it's a mess.

The majority of physicists disagree with you. Paul Davies is one example. Yes, the universe is such a "mess" that it can be rationally understood through science--where it is observed, tested, and predictions are made. if the universe were really a mess, then this would be impossible.

We stand upright exposing our sensitive organs. Our optic nerve is on the wrong side of our eye. Males have nipples. The recurrent laryngeal nerve loops from our brain, bellow the aortic arch, and back up to the larnyx. If we were designed then someone did a piss poor job.

I was talking about the universe itself and not human beings in particular. Regardless, much of what you're saying is subjective, like the issue with men having nipples. What's wrong with men having nipples? You seem to be operating under a few hidden premises. The main assumption seems to be that if we were created by a perfect being, then it would try to make us perfect. That doesn't seem intuitively true though. Why would you assume that? Another way of putting it is, why would you assume a perfect being would make us in a 100% efficient way? Let me put it this way. Obviously, you think men having nipples is silly or inefficient. You also seem to think that if a perfect being created biological life, then he would choose to do so in a 100% efficient way or he wouldn't leave any loose ends, like men having nipples that don't serve any pragmatic purpose. But that would only be true if God were some sort of cold and calculating scientist. Maybe God isn't like that. Maybe He's more like an artist. Or maybe He's a mixture of both. After all, He is perfect. A perfect being would be creative, wise, and intelligent, among other things.

With your fifth argument I'm assuming that you mean "world" to be universe and that it possible that a maximally powerful being could exist within our universe.

A "possible world" in philosophy would be a mere description of reality. A list of true propositions that describe the fabric of a reality. Our world is the actual world and it too could be described with a list of true propositions. For example, we could imagine a possible world where everything mimics the actual world save for one thing: the earth doesn't exist. Besides that, it is a near perfect copy of the actual world. To say something is possible is just another way of saying "there exists a possible world where that could happen." Using the above example, the earth didn't have to exist. And a necessary being would be a being who exists in all possible worlds, including the actual world. Some philosophers and mathematicians believe logic may be necessary in this way. There wouldn't be a possible world where logic didn't exist.

We've never seen anything in this universe that begins to suggest that a maximally powerful being is possible.

I don't know what to say to this. Blacks holes, suns, supernovas, the universe itself. These are all extraordinary things. One could imagine arranging every facet of reality from least to greatest. Single-celled organisms to ants to dolphins to human beings to ???... Solar systems to galaxies to universes to ???... A maximally powerful being would top it all. That's how I'd imagine it. To argue that a maximally powerful being isn't even possible (and therefore exists in no possible world) is a very strong claim that would require a very justification. What is yours?
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
[QUOTE="brucewayne69"][QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="Mithrandir50"] That's like asking for proof that chickens won't turn into robots and rape us tomorrow.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.

You can't disprove something that has no basis in reality

In other words, "God doesn't exist because I say so and if God doesn't exist then it makes no sense to argue for his existence." Also known as circular reasoning. A logical fallacy. Come back to me when you decide to actually engage with the arguments. I'll be back later. I'm going to go eat food and play video games.
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"]In any case, from what I understand, many Israelites turned away from the true God to worship false gods like Baal and Asherah, but I don't see how that disproves the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.Mithrandir50
That's like asking for proof that chickens won't turn into robots and rape us tomorrow.

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.rastotm
I agree.

2. God has no cause, so if he exists, he exists in the necessity of its own nature

Yup.

3. Anything that exists and cannot be explained creates a necessity for it's explanation.

4. God exists as long as humans fail to understand and explain things.

Actually, I think one reaches the conclusion that God exists through understanding and knowledge.

5. God is the absence of reason.

No, I don't think "God" means the absence of reason. I'm pretty sure the word refers to the being who created all of reality outside of Himself.

6. Arguing that he exists is unreasonable.

How so?
Avatar image for Sleepwalk7
Sleepwalk7

113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Sleepwalk7
Member since 2013 • 113 Posts
[QUOTE="Sleepwalk7"][QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]

 

This site should be helpful for you

Mithrandir50
It isn't since it's not a reputable source. I was thinking more along the lines of, you know, the work of an actual scholar, not a basement dweller.

Nice grammar, man. Please provide evidence from an actual scholar that the bible has validity and originality. Also, the link I provided is legitimate. The writer's occupation is irrelevant. Technically, he is a scholar though.

I suck at writing, but then again, I'm a Computer Science major. I'm sure your lack of proficiency in English would be just as apparent if you wrote more than two sentences at a time. Instead, you creep in the shadows, throw a few jabs, then slink away. Nice avatar, by the way. I presume it has something to do with you not being able to argue against the existence of God. Very interesting. Somebody avoids the arguments for the existence of God that I've listed, and then starts attacking the Judeo-Christian God on the grounds of "the Bible is a collection of early mythology." I ask for evidence, and then I'm told, "No, you give us evidence that the Bible isn't BS!" However, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the claimant. In any case, define what you mean by valid and original. I'm interested. Lastly, no, that link is most definitely not legitimate and the writer's occupation is very relevant. It is good practice to go to the experts in any given field, not basement dwellers.