Title: An Ad By Google
Post by: Nazzer on January 14, 2009, 08:46:52 PM
Post by: Nazzer on January 14, 2009, 08:46:52 PM
in one of the threads here, i noticed "6 Proofs that God Exists" and had to click. This is what I found.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=COvJubzzjpgCFQIMswodjFlvDg
Each of these arguments is demonstrably false.
The first, second, and third arguments are all actually the same: they are examples of complexity, and the argument from Complexity assumes that scientific explantions say that complexity arose from nothing. This type of argument is demonstrative of a weak grasp of science, as any atheist here will attest.
The fourth, the argument from majority, says "There are so many people that DO believe in God, so he must exist". By the logic here, it would follow that in the 18th century, when bloodletting was widely considered a viable medical treatment, should have worked, but it definitely only worsened one's health.
The fifth is hardly an argument at all. It states that God must exist because he "is pursuing us". By this logic, you must also believe in the celestial teapot, because it wishes for us to drink from it. The flaw here is that the argument is merely the citing of the will of the person whose existence is in question as evidence for his existence, and so requires the person in question to exist for the argument to be accepted.
The sixth one is just as flawed as the other ones on the list. It says that God exists because "Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us". Like the fifth on the list, it assumes that God exists, and so is no better than saying "God exists because he exists" or "God Exists because he is an Asian transvestite."
Discuss.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=COvJubzzjpgCFQIMswodjFlvDg
Each of these arguments is demonstrably false.
The first, second, and third arguments are all actually the same: they are examples of complexity, and the argument from Complexity assumes that scientific explantions say that complexity arose from nothing. This type of argument is demonstrative of a weak grasp of science, as any atheist here will attest.
The fourth, the argument from majority, says "There are so many people that DO believe in God, so he must exist". By the logic here, it would follow that in the 18th century, when bloodletting was widely considered a viable medical treatment, should have worked, but it definitely only worsened one's health.
The fifth is hardly an argument at all. It states that God must exist because he "is pursuing us". By this logic, you must also believe in the celestial teapot, because it wishes for us to drink from it. The flaw here is that the argument is merely the citing of the will of the person whose existence is in question as evidence for his existence, and so requires the person in question to exist for the argument to be accepted.
The sixth one is just as flawed as the other ones on the list. It says that God exists because "Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us". Like the fifth on the list, it assumes that God exists, and so is no better than saying "God exists because he exists" or "God Exists because he is an Asian transvestite."
Discuss.
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: SSY on January 15, 2009, 02:48:13 AM
Post by: SSY on January 15, 2009, 02:48:13 AM
I love those adds, like the atheist riddle advertised below.
none of them make sense, just like the teleogical argument, the ontalogical argument ( I really hate that one ) and pascals wager.
They are all thought up from the point of view that god does exist, how can we prove that? this makes them fundamentally weak in their inception, and hence in their execution.
none of them make sense, just like the teleogical argument, the ontalogical argument ( I really hate that one ) and pascals wager.
They are all thought up from the point of view that god does exist, how can we prove that? this makes them fundamentally weak in their inception, and hence in their execution.
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: bowmore on January 15, 2009, 07:05:28 AM
Post by: bowmore on January 15, 2009, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: "SSY"the ontalogical argument ( I really hate that one )
Why do you hate it?
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: SSY on January 15, 2009, 10:50:31 AM
Post by: SSY on January 15, 2009, 10:50:31 AM
It's so stupid, Just reading it made me angry. How anyone could convince themselves of it's truth is beyond me.
The idea of god is of a perfect thing
Ideas are less perfect tahn realities
Therefor God exists.
It makes no difference between the idea of something and the thing, it does not offer evidence for its second premise, it's rubbish as far as arguments for god goes. It's a classic case of deluding one's self into believing
The idea of god is of a perfect thing
Ideas are less perfect tahn realities
Therefor God exists.
It makes no difference between the idea of something and the thing, it does not offer evidence for its second premise, it's rubbish as far as arguments for god goes. It's a classic case of deluding one's self into believing
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: bowmore on January 15, 2009, 11:42:41 AM
Post by: bowmore on January 15, 2009, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: "SSY"It's so stupid, Just reading it made me angry. How anyone could convince themselves of it's truth is beyond me.
The idea of god is of a perfect thing
Ideas are less perfect tahn realities
Therefor God exists.
It makes no difference between the idea of something and the thing, it does not offer evidence for its second premise, it's rubbish as far as arguments for god goes. It's a classic case of deluding one's self into believing
Ah ok, then I understood correctly.
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: Twiddler on February 01, 2009, 06:58:25 PM
Post by: Twiddler on February 01, 2009, 06:58:25 PM
Yeah, I've seen that one before. From what I remember skimming, its just a shortened version of The Case for a Creator, which is not worth anyone's time.
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: Will on February 01, 2009, 07:53:50 PM
Post by: Will on February 01, 2009, 07:53:50 PM
Quote from: "SSY"It's so stupid, Just reading it made me angry. How anyone could convince themselves of it's truth is beyond me.I couldn't agree more. The whole thing is an absolute mess. First, they choose to define perfection, which is absolutely stupid because it's circular. God is perfect therefore perfection is god? Shut up! And god certainly isn't perfect from my perspective. A perfect god would be no god. Why does the definition of perfection of the postulater count and mine doesn't? Second, perfection necessitates existence? Give me a break. I presented an axiom on this very forum a few years ago about the perfect chip (or crisp). It has infinite size, mass, and perfect taste. If god is real, then so is my chip.
The idea of god is of a perfect thing
Ideas are less perfect than realities
Therefor God exists.
It makes no difference between the idea of something and the thing, it does not offer evidence for its second premise, it's rubbish as far as arguments for god goes. It's a classic case of deluding one's self into believing
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: Tom62 on February 01, 2009, 10:35:02 PM
Post by: Tom62 on February 01, 2009, 10:35:02 PM
Just as stupid as
1. Transitional fossils don't exists
2. Therefore Evolution is wrong
3. Therefore Earth is 10,000 years old
4. Therefore God exists
1. Transitional fossils don't exists
2. Therefore Evolution is wrong
3. Therefore Earth is 10,000 years old
4. Therefore God exists
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: curiosityandthecat on February 01, 2009, 10:51:26 PM
Post by: curiosityandthecat on February 01, 2009, 10:51:26 PM
...or:
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: Will on February 02, 2009, 12:52:56 AM
Post by: Will on February 02, 2009, 12:52:56 AM
Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.Heaven forbid!
Title: Re: An Ad By Google
Post by: Ninteen45 on March 01, 2009, 01:44:51 AM
Post by: Ninteen45 on March 01, 2009, 01:44:51 AM
Quote from: "SSY"The idea of god is of a perfect thing
Ideas are less perfect than realities
Therefor God exists.
God is perfect
Nobody is perfect
God is Nobody
God does not exist.