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
#81
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
On what basis should I say that? How is it best supported by science and philosophy when there is literally no god in science at the present moment?
Which is in part why I asked you why you were an agnostic. It sounds a lot like you're trying to appease some rationale some may have of you being close-minded because you don't entertain the possibility.

No reasonable person should/need to humor an idea simply because of it's existence/utterance. If there's nothing but bad reasons and assumptions behind it, then putting it on the same level as actual possible things that can exist should be frowned upon.

Think of it as a lack of moral compass/judgement so to speak, with regards to religious appeasement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
We agree more than you think, I simply don't feel we have enough current evidence to completely negate the concept of god.
What evidence is there for the concept of god, is what I'm getting at.

I can say the Earth is a giagantic pourous alien that's slowly digesting our planet (shit! ). Who in their right mind would entertain the possibility of that being true simply because I just simply...well, said it?

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 05:11 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
#82
03-30-2011
Default

I really don't see the point in bringing up Aquinas's tired ass cosmological argument.

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/0...s/edwards.html
Spoiler!
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
#83
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
lolololololololol!


Quote:
Agnosticism is more about the nature knowledge and epistemological than it is ontological.
Yeah, realized that probably wasn't the most accurate statement after I posted it. I will admit I don't have as full an understanding on agnosticism as others.

Quote:
It's probably best to not ever bring up Craig in a debate.
Care to explain why? He's been holding his own in intelligent debates for decades now.

Quote:
1. No.
2. This point demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of cosmology.
3. A mechanistic explanation suffices.
4. This point demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of cosmology. Where's the channel connecting the material to the immaterial? By virtue of what can they interact in the first place? Magic?
5. The color blue makes me happy. It seems to me that you're saying something that is immaterial cannot affect something that is material. Huh.
7. Holy sh.t huge unfounded leap my god so much handwaving and misuse of terms I sh.t a castle.
Not my explanation but Craig's, but I will say "No" is not a very good rebuttal.

Also, like Frag, you did not watch the video.

Last edited by Nv1ncible; 03-30-2011 at 05:16 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
#84
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
Which is in part why I asked you why you were an agnostic. It sounds a lot like you're trying to appease some rationale some may have of you being close-minded because you don't entertain the possibility.

No reasonable person should/need to humor an idea simply because of it's existence/utterance. If there's nothing but bad reasons and assumptions behind it, then putting it on the same level as actual possible things that can exist should be frowned upon.

It's as if you're a moral compass so to speak, with regards to religious appeasement.
I told you: there isn't sufficient evidence affirming god, nor is there sufficient evidence of negating god entirely. That is why at the given time, it is foolish to affirm Intelligent design completely, and it is also foolish to negate intelligent design. We'll have to wait until more evidence is found in favor of either side.

What is more foolish than both, though, is not only affirming the concept of god, but affirming a particular god whose characteristics/actions are self contradicting and contradicting to current science. This has no chance at being plausible, and therefore should not even be considered a potential candidate for the origin of the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
What evidence is there for the concept of god, is what I'm getting at.

I can say the Earth is a giagantic pourous alien that's slowly digesting our planet (sh.t! ). Who in their right mind would entertain the possibility of that being true simply because I just simply...well, said it?
I don't have any, do you? People didn't have evidence of evolution 2000 years ago, but that didn't mean it was false back then. It would have been also irrational at the time (given the evidence they had) to assume it was true. It would have been nothing more than an extremely lucky guess.

Considering there's scientific evidence that our world isn't deteriorating from any digestion, I would say that claim is extremely improbable, and only potentially possible if you played with the semantics of the word "digestion" by an absurd amount.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 05:22 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
#85
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv1ncible View Post
Care to explain why? He's been holding his own in intelligent debates for decades now.
Well, other than how he actually hasn't and his little personality cult is the only group that would disagree, sure.


Quote:
Not my explanation but Craig's, but I will say "No" is not a very good rebuttal.
Sorry, I don't need to qualify the dismissal of an unfounded claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And let me know when you or Craig get past sh.t Hume figured out about causality 300 years ago. Third, nothing "begins" to exist anymore--it's all the same matter and energy. Yes, you could argue that physical changes require causes, but that's not even close to what we're talking about here.

Quote:
Also, like Frag, you did not watch the video.
Factually inaccurate. It took everything I had not to vomit boiling pitch at Craig's ignorance, esp. regarding how infinity actually works and what it means mathematically, and it just got worse from there.
Spoiler!

Last edited by davobrosia; 03-30-2011 at 05:26 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
#86
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
I told you: there isn't sufficient evidence affirming god, nor is there sufficient evidence of negating god entirely. That is why at the given time, it is foolish to affirm Intelligent design completely, and it is also foolish to negate intelligent design. We'll have to wait until more evidence is found in favor of either side.

What is more foolish than both, though, is not only affirming the concept of god, but affirming a particular god whose characteristics/actions are self contradicting and contradicting to current science. This has no chance at being plausible, and therefore should not even be considered a potential candidate for the origin of the universe.
That's lazy thinking. Tolerating insufficient ideas based on assumptive and hopeful thinking is not commendable or scholarly.

There's of no perceived offensiveness when one simply denies acknowledgement that god is worth arguing for. There has been an assumption made by moderate agnosticism that god is somehow above the average banal and fantasy-filled tales being ignored for ages and days.

You're contradicting your mission of disbelief in the first place by actually being gullible enough to think there's still some reason to question the argument for a god as much as there is not for a god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
I don't have any, do you? People didn't have evidence of evolution 2000 years ago, but that didn't mean it was false back then. It would have been also irrational at the time (given the evidence they had) to assume it was true. It would have been nothing more than an extremely lucky guess.
I don't think it's a good idea (nor an accurate analogy) to make a correlation between something thought up through observation and study, with that of something thought up through the fallibility of a human's psychology to contend with their unanswerable questions ages and days ago, among other insecurities and fears an ignorant race without the capabilities of formalized education and knowledge that we have the luxury of now.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 05:27 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
#87
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
That's lazy thinking. Tolerating insufficient ideas based on assumptive and hopeful thinking is not commendable or scholarly.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
There's of no perceived offensiveness when one simply denies acknowledgement that god is worth arguing for. There has been an assumption made by moderate agnosticism that god is somehow above the average banal and fantasy-filled tales being ignored for ages and days.
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 right now. But for some reason, you have a hard time tolerating the answer "I don't know".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
You're contradicting your mission of disbelief in the first place by actually being gullible enough to think there's still some reason to question the argument for a god as much as there is not for a god.
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. The origin of the universe has not yet been discovered, and I accept that.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 05:34 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
#88
03-30-2011
Default

I forgot one. Other than how Craig's arguments are tired and get shot down handily by pretty much everybody, there's this: http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra...onable%20Faith

Quote:
In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb.
Spoiler!
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
#89
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davobrosia View Post
Well, other than how he hasn't, sure.
Expected response.

Quote:
Sorry, I don't need to qualify the dismissal of an unfounded claim. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Let me know when Craig gets past sh.t Hume figured out about causality 300 years ago.
What makes his claim unfounded? What makes Hume's claim founded? If you're going to jump into the skepticist boat, then there's no sense in continuing this argument, and the fact that you lol'ed at my attempt to claim scientific evidence in support of a creator is just laughably ironic.
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
#90
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nv1ncible View Post

Also, like Frag, you did not watch the video.
When you rebuttal people with that unwarranted assumption, not much will get accomplished.
 

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