Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#91
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
It's not lazy thinking, nor is it hopeful thinking. I would be completely content with dying and not existing. It would be just like it was for me before I was born. I'm simply not going to negate something when I have no evidence for negating it.

Hold on a second... we aren't talking about whether or not god is worth arguing for right now. We are talking about absolutely whether or not a god exists. Clearly, given the current evidence (lack of it, actually) for god, it would be absurd to argue for the existence of god. But for some reason, you have a hard time tolerating the answer "I don't know".

It's not gullibility. If I was gullible, I would believe in it. I don't. I also didn't assign equal levels of validity for both sides. I haven't assigned levels of validity at all. I have no evidence to do so rationally. I, very simply put, just don't know at the given time.
I think you're misunderstanding my lack of wanting to argue for/against a god as the exact opposite.

I'm asking you why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.

Excuse my wording then and replace hopeful with naive/oblivious if that helps.

I'm just going to borrow davo's comment since you seem to be looking past it for even your own point:

One doesn't need to qualify the dismissal of an unfounded claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

The assertion being that the topic of god has enough of whatever it is that you think without doubt that existence is at all possible.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 05:39 PM.
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#92
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv1ncible View Post
Expected response.
What? Dismissal of an unfounded claim? If you think he's actually respected by any community other than other apologists, then it's on you to provide proof of that.
Here's just one example of Craig treading water while someone much more intelligent picks him apart.


I don't expect a response for a couple hours. I expect you'll extend the same courtesy as I did and watch the whole debate before responding. Yes, it's supposed to be ironic that I posted the first part of the debate you posted. Because you didn't watch the whole thing.

Here's another:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigBradleyHellDebate.mp3
And another:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigParsonsDebate.mp3

He gets trounced. This is ignoring the fact that live debates are largely irrelevant. This would serve to better support my point, but I don't expect you to actually read something. https://www.dropbox.com/s/4w3vftzbg1...nterpoint_.pdf

Here's a non-debate form takedown of Craig's terrible arguments:


Again, please watch the whole thing before responding.
Quote:
What makes his claim unfounded?
The fact that he asserts it as axiomatic without actually providing any kind of reason to accept it as axiomatic?

Quote:
What makes Hume's claim founded?
Hey why not come back when you actually know the "claim" you're talking about, kay pumpkin?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#CauIndInfNegPha

Quote:
If you're going to jump into the skepticist boat, then there's no sense in continuing this argument
"If you're going to demand evidence when someone presents a claim, then I'm taking my ball and going home!"



Quote:
and the fact that you lol'ed at my attempt to claim scientific evidence in support of a creator is just laughably ironic.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I must have missed the scientific evidence there. I did notice a lot of ignorance and handwaving about philosophical, scientific, and mathematical concepts way above one's paygrade, though. Is that what you meant by "scientific evidence"?

Here's a somewhat thorough textual rebuttal to Craig's brand of the cosmological argument:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...al-argument/#4

Please read it.
Spoiler!

Last edited by davobrosia; 03-30-2011 at 05:59 PM.
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#93
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
I'm asking you why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.
The origin of the universe has not been scientifically explained yet. I disregard beliefs that contradict the science we have and our logic. The concept of god doesn't inherently contradict the science we have, nor does it contradict our logic. What many religious people have conceived about god does, though... so naturally those get disregarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
Excuse my wording then, replace hopeful with naive/oblivious.
How is it naive and oblivious? If a notion doesn't contradict our current information and is logically consistent, I'm not going to negate it on the basis of lack of evidence. I will consider it unfounded.

The problem I have with your assumption of anything that has no current evidence should be negated is that you end up negating concepts that could be proven true in the future.

Look at the scientific concepts we have been able to prove with our current technology. 1000 years ago, they didn't have that equipment, and thus didn't have sufficient, if any, evidence to affirm those concepts at the time. By your argument, it would be rational to negate those concepts at that time period. Since it was proven true later, was it really logical to negate the concept originally in the first place?

For your argument to be true, we have to assume that our evidence, our ability to obtain evidence, and our knowledge will not grow.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 05:52 PM.
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#94
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
The origin of the universe has not been scientifically explained yet.
And what you're getting at is a false dichotomy. If they haven't proven anything yet, that doesn't simply mean then God did it (or rather if god should even be considered in the discussion!)

Quote:
I disregard beliefs that contradict the science we have and our logic. The concept of god doesn't inherently contradict the science we have, nor does it contradict our logic. What many religious people have conceived about god does, though... so naturally those get disregarded.
You're still on this whole "for/against" schtick. What I'm talking about what precedes that discussion.

Quote:
How is it naive and oblivious? If a notion doesn't contradict our current information and is logically consistent, I'm not going to negate it on the basis of lack of evidence. I will consider it unfounded.
There's no reason to take it as an offense, I'm not calling you naive and oblivious, it's the thinking.

That's just a bunch of 'woo woo' nonsense. What's unfounded is your naive assumption that god has enough sufficient evidence or reason behind the mere idea that it's worth talking about/onsidering true.

Quote:
The problem I have with your assumption that anything that has no current evidence should be negated is that you end up negating concepts that could be proven true in the future.
That's because I'm not saying anything that does not have evidence cannot be thought of or imagined. I'm saying that the idea of a god is unfounded, scientifically.

Quote:
Look at the scientific concepts we have been able to prove with our current technology. 1000 years ago, they didn't have that equipment, and thus didn't have sufficient, if any, evidence to affirm those concepts at the time.
No one's blaming them! Certainly not myself. lol

I'm stating it's a cause of sheer lack of what you're arguing they did not have. I'm not arguing against their ignorance, you're mistaking what I said for pity, apparently.

PS. Going to watch a movie, I'll come back later.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 05:54 PM.
Nv1ncible
MCC Clan: [TheHaloForum]
Nv1ncible's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 4,506
Subtract from Nv1ncible's ReputationAdd to Nv1ncible's Reputation Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000 Nv1ncible IS OVER 9000
#95
03-30-2011
Default

@Davo. I've watched some of that debate, but honestly it wasn't very compelling to me. I mean I will say this, Craig does repeat a lot of the same stuff in his debates, so if you've seen one you've seen them all. On the other hand, Hitchens didn't offer much of a rebuttal to Craig's claims, and the fact that he kept throwing in seemingly personal jabs at the Christian community, I just found myself getting upset.

You can dismiss Craig if you want, that's fine. I won't dismiss Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone else's argument, even your own had you chosen to present one (from what I can tell all you do is pick apart other's conclusions instead of presenting you're own opinions). I think you and I both realize neither of us is going to convince the other, which is why I'm not going to waste a lot of time in this thread. I like the discussion though, and more interestingly enough the different positions held by everyone here.
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#96
03-30-2011
Default

I did not mean to post the Hitchens debate. I dislike Hitchens.


I pick apart others' claims about religion and don't tend to make my own because I don't have any. I don't need to provide an alternative because atheism is the default stance.
Spoiler!
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#97
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
And what you're getting at is a false dichotomy. If they haven't proven anything yet, that doesn't simply mean then God did it (or rather if god should even be considered in the discussion!)
Agreed 100%. But why do you think I said this?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
You're still on this whole "for/against" schtick. What I'm talking about what precedes that discussion.
You asked me "why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.", so of course I was on that discussion at the time I was writing it.

But hey, you want to move on. Let's move on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
There's no reason to take it as an offense, I'm not calling you naive and oblivious, it's the thinking.

That's just a bunch of 'woo woo' nonsense. What's unfounded is your naive assumption that god has enough sufficient evidence or reason behind the mere idea that it's worth talking about/onsidering true.
I'm not considering it as true, nor do I talk about it in the context of affirmation. I don't talk about it in the context of negation either, unless someone asserts a notion of a particular god that is inconsistent with logic and science.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
That's because I'm not saying anything that does not have evidence cannot be thought of or imagined. I'm saying that the idea of a god is unfounded, scientifically.
I agree for the most part, except there still is the very small chance that someone had an unfounded theory (if you can even call it a theory) that ended up being true later.

Is this substantial? Of course not.

But when you take it a step further and negate the existence of it, there needs to be reasoning with evidence on your end because you are inherently denying the possibility that it will ever be true in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
No one's blaming them! Certainly not myself. lol

I'm stating it's a cause of sheer lack of what you're arguing they did not have. I'm not arguing against their ignorance, you're mistaking what I said for pity, apparently.
Answer me this question: if you lived 2000 years ago, and somebody asserted evolution for the first time with no evidence, would you negate it? Or would you consider it unfounded?

I would consider it unfounded, I would not negate it.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 06:08 PM.
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#98
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
Agreed 100%. But why do you think I said this?



You asked me "why you believe god has a possibility of existing above other disregarded beliefs.", so of course I was on that discussion at the time I was writing it.

But hey, you want to move on. Let's move on.


I'm not considering it as true, nor do I talk about it in the context of affirmation. I don't talk about it in the context of negation either, unless someone asserts a notion of a particular god that is inconsistent with logic and science.



I agree for the most part, except there still is the very small chance that someone had an unfounded theory (if you can even call it a theory) that ended up being true later.

Is this substantial? Of course not.

But when you take it a step further and negate the existence of it, there needs to be reasoning with evidence on your end because you are inherently denying the possibility that it will ever be true in the future.


Answer me this question: if you lived 2000 years ago, and somebody asserted evolution for the first time with no evidence, would you negate it? Or would you consider it unfounded?

I would consider it unfounded, I would not negate it.
Really got to go but, I would consider it unfounded, obviously.

There is no analogy in the correlation between a god and evolution as you say there is.

Evolution is demonstrable and open to observation. God is not present.

It exists in mere belief (and from where it originated I won't get into (you get the point.)), as I don't think beliefs are worth having.

edit: and I don't think you believe that in the slightest. I think you believe they are equally evident, which isn't the case. It's a apologetic and moderate sort of stance to take because they are not equal.
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#99
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
Really got to go but, I would consider it unfounded, obviously.

There is no analogy in the correlation between a god and evolution as you say there is.

Evolution is demonstrable and open to observation. God is not present.

It exists in mere belief (and from where it originated I won't get into (you get the point.)), as I don't think beliefs are worth having.
If god cannot ever be observed by science, I will never have any reason to believe in him. For for all intents and purposes, you can call me an atheist in that regard. God is such a vague term, I don't think him not being present is inherent in the term... but I really don't want to waste everyone's time arguing semantics. I do think defining god is important, though.

And I hope you don't take all of this in the context of me thinking there is a greater chance that god exists than god not existing. I don't believe that at all.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 06:10 PM.
bjorn_248
Bumbling Buffoon
bjorn_248's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: THF IRC
Posts: 5,296
Subtract from bjorn_248's ReputationAdd to bjorn_248's Reputation bjorn_248 is bustin' chills and getting paided bjorn_248 is bustin' chills and getting paided bjorn_248 is bustin' chills and getting paided bjorn_248 is bustin' chills and getting paided bjorn_248 is bustin' chills and getting paided bjorn_248 is bustin' chills and getting paided
Send a message via AIM to bjorn_248 Send a message via Skype™ to bjorn_248
#100
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
How do you define free will? I define it as the ability to do otherwise, basically. When action is infallibly foreknown, there's no possibility to do other than what was foreknown, by definition.

The issue is that if the "timeline" of future events can even be known, free will is nonexistent.
I also define it like that.

The first problem I see is this. I assume the existence of a time line, and as time as a dimension on which things can exist simultaneously (something is happening in the future as well as happening in the past, just at different points along the time line (or time dimension). There is also another time line option in which there is the present, the past and future, but they don't exist simultaneously. The other option would be to assume no past or future exist, and only the present moment, no?

If we assume a timeline, and if we can make decisions of our own free will, then they will always be the same if we move along that time line. It doesn't matter if they are determined or not, once we make the decision, they can't change within that universe, otherwise, time paradox no?

EDIT: Wow I've really fallen behind in this thread.

EDIT 2: I'd have to agree that there is no reason for anything to have a cause. I've been reading up on the causal principle and I'm not following. Will edit more, still watching debate.

EDIT 3: Finished the debate, great watch.

I'm not seeing any support for the causal principle anywhere, and my first response to that would be, no, just as davo aptly put it. Craig's argument for the beginning of the universe is based upon some pretty big assumptions about time and the big bang that I'm not willing to accept just like that in an argument like this, mainly because this is an area of heavy study in physics and cosmology as Dacey pointed out.

@Hans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwRlgo7KRmw&t=8m50s
Errare humanum est

Atiemark <3

Mac Encoding

Render Farm

IRC Server

ENCODING PROGRAM

Last edited by bjorn_248; 03-30-2011 at 10:30 PM.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off