Attributes of the Abrihamic God - further disproof

[Sophus]

Well, I'm not a theist

A Christian that's not a theist  :pop:

[PipeBox]

Would the peanut gallery like to say anything?  :hmm:

Never heard of cultural Christianity?  The description of being sort of a Christian only need mean that she finds some of the doctrines have merit, or heck, maybe none.  Maybe her friends and family or just neighborhood is Christian.  She never really told us what she meant by it, and sort of gives a lot of space for differences.

but forgive me for not yielding to such persuasive and rational arguments as "but it's common sense!!", and "you're a grade-schooler for not agreeing with me!"

Right, except those were my own personal form of comic relief. The actual arguments were of course completely refuted by your impressive ability to deem them an assertion.

Both of you give me the impression the argument is going nowhere.  When either asks for justification, the other denies it.  Don't throw things at me.  
 

[Hitsumei]

Sorry, I should have elaborated.  We don't drink bleach because we think it's nuts and we've a pretty good idea it'll kill us.  Nonetheless, this doesn't actually remove the capacity, and people will still do it if they think they should, certain circumstances being thought to justify the act.   Another analogy might be that a locked door doesn't fundamentally violate free will, even if it limits it.   Heck, even a locked door can be broken into.  God gives no apparent safeguards, and we are born with as nearly a de facto death sentence as possible.  This doesn't sound of a god, it sounds like we're about to start discussing a "protection" racket. . .

Well, I don't buy free will at all, and this is partly why. We actually do have inclinations, and instincts that direct our behavior and action. I find this to be positive evidence against the assertion that we have free will at all. I hold the view that everything at the macro scale moving slower than the speed of light, and is temporal is subject to casuality, including human decision making -- as this is what our scientific knowledge suggests. The view that the will is free and non-casual given today's knowledge of the brain demands some kind of dualism, and I think that we have more than sufficient evidence to link consciousness, and minds to the brain.

These two taken together I think is strong positive evidence that metaphysical libertarianism is false.

Sorry, was just having a bit of fun.  You're right, it doesn't make it impossible, but you've not justified it aside from offering that word.  That is, you haven't shown it to be possible, and Christians are the ones making claims of the properties of God and the history of the Cosmos.  

Indeed, I have not, nor have I attempted to demonstrate the metaphysical and ontological claims of Christianity true, and I agree that they have manifestly failed in demonstrating them true, and for this reason do not personally accept them as true.

My only point was that their failure to prove their assertions is not in themselves evidence that they are wrong. Even if their arguments were completely fallacious, to assume their conclusions false for this reason would be the fallacist's fallacy.

For instance:

P1)I am a person
P2)I speak English
C) Thus I live in Canada!!

Everything about this argument is true, but it is built on completely fallacious reasoning.  

That word would not normally be justification for anything, but many people desire God to be a reality, and if "mysteriously" is required to make it possible, they're willing to use it to bridge a very wide gap.  I find it intellectually contemptible to give God such a pass, "mysteriously" is just a way to say "whatever is required for it remain possible."  Indeed, I cannot falsify this assertion, it is beyond it.  But you could be right.

Well, I don't personally buy it, I was just pointing out that it is not easy to refute -- if even possible.

[joeactor]

Sheesh!

Now I know why he's called "God the Father":

Ok you two!  Don't make me come down there!
I mean it!
I will pull this uinverse over and smite the both of you!
Ok, that's it!
No free will for anyone for 2 eons!

Thanks, the name's "God".  I'm here all eternity.  Try the creation, it's on special...

[Hitsumei]

A Christian that's not a theist  

You personally asked me what I meant by "sort of Christian" just the other day, and I answered you on this thread.

Right, except those were my own personal form of comic relief. The actual arguments were of course completely refuted by your impressive ability to deem them an assertion.

Things you just say are true without actually arguing for them, or showing them true are in fact merely assertions.

[Hitsumei]

Both of you give me the impression the argument is going nowhere.  When either asks for justification, the other denies it.  Don't throw things at me.  
 

I've made no positive assertions, I have merely pointed out flaws in reasoning, and failure to address, or appreciate certain positions. I don't need to hold, nor argue for such positions in order to do that.

And as I just outlined to you, my failure to do so would not make the conclusions of the arguments false. That requires positive demonstration.

[Ihateyoumike]

I've made no positive assertions, I have merely pointed out flaws in reasoning, and failure to address, or appreciate certain positions. I don't need to hold, argue for, nor think those positions are correct in order to do that.

Just playing devil's advocate then? It's as I've suspected. Do you simply like to debate? I'm getting that impression from you. No offense, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out your stance on anything because you seem to spend all your time debunking anything anyone says.  :pop:

[Hitsumei]

Just playing devil's advocate then? It's as I've suspected. Do you simply like to debate? I'm getting that impression from you. No offense, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out your stance on anything because you seem to spend all your time debunking anything anyone says.  

It's not playing devil's advocate. To point out that someone is making straw-man or fallacious arguments against a position, is not playing devil's advocate. Playing devil's advocate is taking up a position that one does not actually hold, and then arguing for it. I have not done this at any point.

I do happen to hold the position the what I have said is false or fallacious is in fact false and fallacious, even if the position the points were meant to discredit is one that I do not personally hold.

Nor is this arguing for the sake of arguing. I do happen to think that pointing out when an argument has flaws, whether one agrees with the conclusion or not, is important. You may not though.

[Sophus]

Things you just say are true without actually arguing for them, or showing them true are in fact merely assertions.

An assertion can be true. A lot of people make them under the assumption the cognitive level of others is high enough to grasp what is actually being said. KISS - Keep it short and simple. I used to exhaust myself writing "novels" against Titan. Ha ha. Moving heaven and earth to refute something is a waste of time when the opponent can't grasp or doesn't wish to. Oh and by the way, many of them weren't even assertions. Care to reread?  roflol

[Ryytikki]

why does every thread i start turn into a catfight?  

[McQ]

why does every thread i start turn into a catfight?  

[curiosityandthecat]

why does every thread i start turn into a catfight?  

Yeah, consider it a compliment   Hehe.

[Nulono]

The obvious answer is God would create a stone so big he cannot lift it, then lift it, because to be truly omnipotent, he mustn't be bound by the laws of logic.

[Ryytikki]

The obvious answer is God would create a stone so big he cannot lift it, then lift it, because to be truly omnipotent, he mustn't be bound by the laws of logic.

Try telling that to a Theist

Anyway, the even most obvious argument is that god just turns around, says 'Screw this' and goes and has a beer. Makes much more sense

[Hitsumei]

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.