Sy123
This too shall pass
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,730
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2013
By attacking the ideas behind religion, you are attacking religion.I'm not attacking religion at all. I am attacking the ideas behind him, more specifically, the resultant rise of moral relativism.
Anyway this sentence is completely irrelevant, what you're attacking does not refute my refutations against you, I have, with pretty much every sentence said exactly where you are wrong, and unfortunately, (and pretty much everyone else on this forum) don't know how to do the same, and instead you decide to just make a general response.
Proof in the context of arguments for the existence of God, is never taken to be a mathematical proof, rather arguments for the existence of God are built upon reasonable premises that logically imply its conclusion.And the word 'proof' being tossed around ever so lightly by you, as well as the arguments mentioned in this thread .
First of all, the arguments were never seen, especially not the pseudo arguments from religious experience and cosmological argument, which were so far off, that they call into question your ability, understanding and comprehension of these arguments, you didn't mention 'arguing from the bible' in your post, in your post instead you decided to mischaracterise everything that the theist has ever said.I did not know 'god-complex' was a formally definition, rather I used at as a suffix of complex to refer to the ideas encompassing the theme of a belief in a common upper deity, i digress. The arguements I have referenced, yes, were actually seen in this thread. Scroll a few pages back and look. There was one on the same page using the bible to justify the existence of whatever.
Also why you would look for the worst arguments possible to try and represent theistic argumentation as a whole is willfully dishonest
Give me proof for that statementHere is the point that you are not getting. You cannot prove the existence of god,
It is one thing to say that none of the arguments hold true, and another thing to say that one cannot prove the existence of God
No you can't, because to do so you'd have to actually know what you're talking about, and since you think the cosmological argument has a premise called "Everything has a cause", then clearly you have no idea what you are talking aboutI can spare some time from my day and examine your arguments, premises and refute them with some research unless you would like them skimmed over, which would be insulting to the time you clearly have put into them.
Firstly, God is detectable by nature, the very fact that a Universe exists contingently is evidence for the existence of God given a right argumentBecause I know that proving something undetectable by nature is a waste of time. .
Nice hypocrisy, you outline how much has been done on the subject, and then go on to say that all arguments are incorrect (since you said that God cannot be proven), and you don't even know what the cosmological argument(s) actually saysIt's been attempted. A fuckload of books have been written about them, hundreds of fucking pages. And you think you have the capacity to prove the existence in a few fucking lines?
Secondly, I don't purport to have proof of the existence of God in a few lines, I have never claimed that and thus this is another thing you have put into my mouth
Yeah well philosophers from Aristotle to Kant, and 70% of Philosophers of Religion today thought you could prove the existence of God, and have given proofs as suchDo you understand how ignorant that is? Do you really think that you have it ALL figured out, what took philosophers thousands of years? That you can PROVE the existence of a god?
Then you aren't really an atheist, you're just not sure whether God exists, you're use of the word "absolutely" here is mere rhetorical in value and possesses no meaning, you either think God exists or you think He doesn't. If you say He doesn't then you are an atheist.I don't claim I do, and no atheist claims, with 100% certainty, to deny the absolute existence of god.
This again needs proof, you are making tonnes of assertions with no proofAt the same time, no theist should claim they can PROVE the existence of GOD.
I never claimed to have proof in a few linesYet alone, in a few lines on a fucking internet forum.
You must be a very sensitive person thenIt's insulting.
Problem being you gave no evidence for thatAs I mentioned before, one can only say with a high degree of certainty, no such figure exists.
Yes they were, you need to be alerted to the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, your characterisations of religion and of the cosmological argument in your post, prompted me to use those imagesThe pictures were quite unnecessary.
I am only after all abrasive in argumentation with those people who have no idea what they are doing, and claim that they do so, such people should be spoken to harshly as they have suspended their intellect.