• Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    Do you believe in a creator?
    — Mr Phil O'Sophy

    I don't know. Perhaps we'll need to die and find out. I tried believing in God but which one?
    TheMadFool

    I would say if you're asking that question, then you have an incomplete idea of what it means to be a God. There can only be one God. When you talk of things that are themselves created, you are no longer referring to a god, but a finite being. A God capable of creating all contingent things would itself have to be uncreated. So there are only two options of possibility, either no God at all, or One God which is infinite uncreated and endless. The moment you introduce finite characteristics you are no longer referring to a God, but a created being.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    it just all the more proves my pointNKBJ

    I certainly don't think it does.

    I can very well say that it must have been created by someone, and even hazard guesses as to the nature of that person.NKBJ

    This is exactly what religious people do. But describing the nature of something is not finding it. I guess a better way of putting it, is the characters in the painting looking for the painter in the painting itself.
    A better example might be a character in the Sims becoming self aware and looking for the creator in the game itself.

    The universe, as far as we have been able to conclude through scientific inquiry, has no hints of having been created by a third party. There are no "brushstrokes" (to stick with your analogy) that might indicate a creator.NKBJ

    The fine tuning argument is probably the best argument against that very statement. One which Hitchens himself says is not a trivial argument:



    So, you're admitting we have more reason to rely on science than to believe in a supernatural creator?NKBJ

    No thats not what I was saying at all haha. That seems like a wild inference to make from what I said. Science is useful for specific things. It is not useful for all things.

    And why do you think people like to believe in deities? I can think of some psychological reasons, a few evolutionary/biological ones, but none that would convince me objectively that there is anything to be gained (especially not in the 21st Century) from the practice.NKBJ

    Why do you assume people like to believe in deities? When I became a believer it wasn't easy for me to do so. in fact, it would have been a much more 'likeable' experience to be a non-beiieving hedonist. It meant I had to drastically change a lot of things about me. There are lots of things I desire and liked that I had to give up, I loved smoking weed, having pre-marital sex, watching porn, spending all my money on material things, swearing, listening to all sorts of music. Lots of things I didn't want to do that I had to start doing. Praying 5 times a day, getting up before sunrise to do the morning prayer, fasting during the month of Ramadan, giving away (relatively) large sums of money away in charity, etc etc.

    It was a very painful transformation followed by a deep depression and a sense of feeling out of place everywhere I went. It wasn't instantly gratifying as you suggest. Over time however, it is something I can say was for my benefit, and 4 years on, I am in a much better situation than I have ever been in, and my faith in God has only increased. This doesn't mean I outright deny the utility of science, I am just happy to acknowledge its limits, and see it as a flaw to look at the world entirely through a scientific lens.
  • Pattern-chaser
    370
    I would say if you're asking that question, then you have an incomplete idea of what it means to be a God.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    You, on the other hand, seem to have a very fixed and clear idea of what it means to be a God. I wonder how many share your view? It is my experience that there are as many definitions of God as there are believers. But that's just me. :wink:
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    When I became a believer it wasn't easy for me to do so. in fact, it would have been a much more 'likeable' experience to be a non-beiieving hedonist. It meant I had to drastically change a lot of things about me. There are lots of things I desire and liked that I had to give up, I loved smoking weed, having pre-marital sex, watching porn, spending all my money on material things, swearing, listening to all sorts of music. Lots of things I didn't want to do that I had to start doing. Praying 5 times a day, getting up before sunrise to do the morning prayer, fasting during the month of Ramadan, giving away (relatively) large sums of money away in charity, etc etc.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    So you converted to Islam?
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966


    Yes, I followed what appeared to me to be the best argument for what a God would be, if one does in fact exist.



    Yes. I became a muslim around 4 years ago.
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    "Reason is not dependent on any particular material configuration."

    What total rubbish, and a far stronger claim than what I thought you were defending, which was that reason is not material but still depends on some material properties. This latter claim is still false, but it's at least more plausible than your little gem above.
    Uber

    Just noticed this response above which was made over three weeks ago, but not cited properly, so didn’t see it at the time.

    In any case, it i somewhat similar the ‘multiple realisability’ argument of Putnam’s.

    I became a muslim around 4 years ago.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Big step. I respect the discipline shown by Muslims.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    Big stepWayfarer

    Yeah it was. I'm the only Muslim in my family, so it was difficult to make that commitment. Its something that seems strange to many people. I'm sure many on this forum as well.
  • Pattern-chaser
    370
    I respect anyone's beliefs. ... And I expect them to respect mine in return. The only time I have a problem is when someone represents their beliefs as something stronger, like facts, or even The One and Only Truth. :wink: So well done for doing what was/is right for you. :up:
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966


    :up: thank you for sharing that with me :wink: and well done to you too :joke:
  • TheMadFool
    2.4k
    I would say if you're asking that question, then you have an incomplete idea of what it means to be a God. There can only be one God. When you talk of things that are themselves created, you are no longer referring to a god, but a finite being. A God capable of creating all contingent things would itself have to be uncreated. So there are only two options of possibility, either no God at all, or One God which is infinite uncreated and endless. The moment you introduce finite characteristics you are no longer referring to a God, but a created being.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Reminds me of an adult keeping the cookie jar on a shelf, away from the reach of hungry toddlers. I don't know how we can discuss an infinite being with finite concepts.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966


    That is a major difficulty yes lol. I agree. But that’s also a problem with attempting to refer to finite things as well. Can you fully express what or who a particular person is? Or is there always something left unsaid? Or ungrasped due to the finitude nature of language?

    It’s certainly not a perfect way to come to understand the nature of the infinite, but I would say if you can establish what it isn’t, that brings you closer to understanding what it is without having to say it explicitly with the limits of words. Although I do see how that may come across as overtly mystical and annoying :p lol
  • Arne
    295
    I find it strange to believe only in that which can be perceived via the five senses, to rely solely upon logical argument to support a belief, to demand definitions of the indefinable, and to demand empirical evidence when one knows no such evidence is forthcoming. How boring that must be.
  • Rank Amateur
    275

    Agree - I also think it is always appropriate to be aware of cognitive distance in discussions about if there is or is not a God. It could be the equivalent of ask my dog to compute the area under the curve. I think the best question on theism is - is it reasonable to believe in your definition of God. Meaning your belief is not in conflict with fact or reason.

    To the O/P I believe it is reasonable to believe that at least at one time there was a necessary being, an un-created creator, first mover etc. By reason, I acknowledge the likelihood that I do not have the tools or intellect to understand what the totality of such a being is, was or could be.
  • NKBJ
    316


    Maybe for you belief in a deity was the only way to change your lifestyle, but that's clearly not a requirement for all people. I consider refraining from wild hedonism simply a part if being a responsible adult. I don't need a god to tell me that swearing is unnecessarily ugly. Or that being promiscuous won't lead to happiness. Or that porn is disgusting. Or that one ought to listen to music that elevates and stimulates the mind in the best possible way.... As an atheist I believe all those things and I know there are plenty of theists who simply tweak the "rules" their deity proscribes until it fits their preferred lifestyle.

    When I say people want to believe in a god, it's not because of the fineprint of any particular religion. In basic psychological terms, it's the wish to have a parental figure who is perfect and almighty. An almighty and benevolent creator might not currently interfere in the world, but he or she can and ultimately will make everything okay again. We just want assurance that the world can be fixed, that mistakes can be rectified, that someone is watching over us. If we just follow the rules, are good children, our dear Father will love us and protect us from all evil. For though I wander through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for thou art with me.

    Although in Islam Allah is not called "father," put together his 99 names, and you got the same thing. Basically, god just fulfills a psychological need or emotional void that could be just as easily, and more productively fulfilled with real world endeavors.

    As to the creation of the universe... It doesn't add anything to the conversation to state that science isn't helpful in all things. Science has a lot to say about the origin of the universe. It hasn't solved it, but it's a better bet than relying on some stories people made up when they were in trances, or on drugs, or simply bored.

    It's pretty obvious too. If you have mountains of evidence for theory A, and not really anything in support of B, you go with A. If you had cancer for instance, you'd go with the treatment with more evidence of its effectiveness.
  • NKBJ
    316
    How boring that must be.Arne

    Maybe you haven't studied physics, biology, or chemistry much.... But how cells work, how energy comes together in atoms, the fact that your brain is basically one long blast of fireworks until you die with more neurons than there are stars in the Milky Way... That's simply amazing and awesome stuff. What's sad and boring is the perpetual need for more. Something bigger and better. You're missing out on the majesty of what is for some mystical nebula that simply isn't.

    You might have 30,000 days to live in this world, if you're lucky. Don't waste them on voodoo.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    Maybe for you belief in a deity was the only way to change your lifestyle, but that's clearly not a requirement for all people.NKBJ

    You’ve misunderstood me there pal. I never said it was the only way to change my lifestyle nor did I say it was necessary for everyone to believe in order to live as I do in that regard. The belief didn’t arise because of a desire to live differently or to change ones circumstances. The belief came first and the desire for change was inevitable as a result of that; not the other way round as you say here. This is a completely different argument to the one you are incorrectly inferring was my position. That being that I think: “you need to have belief in order to stop the above mentioned bad habits.” That’s a straw man of the point I was trying to make that puts the causal chain in the wrong direction than the one I was attempting to infer. It is not my opinion that is the case, nor did I suggest such a thing.

    I consider refraining from wild hedonism simply a part if being a responsible adult.NKBJ

    I agree.

    I don't need a god to tell me that swearing is unnecessarily ugly. Or that being promiscuous won't lead to happiness. Or that porn is disgusting. Or that one ought to listen to music that elevates and stimulates the mind in the best possible way....NKBJ

    I agree. And never suggested otherwise with anything I said previously.

    and I know there are plenty of theists who simply tweak the "rules" their deity proscribes until it fits their preferred lifestyle.NKBJ

    That is true yes. I personally would consider these people hypocrites. Tweaking rules to fit personal whims and desires is not something I condone.

    In basic psychological terms, it's the wish to have a parental figure who is perfect and almighty.NKBJ

    You can make that claim towards specific individuals in which that might very well be the case (I don’t doubt there are people who become religious for such reasons), but you can’t generalize that towards all people who are believers in a God. That’s not an empirically backed statement but a wild generalization based on what I assume is an intuition based on a study with limited case numbers. Unless of course you can reference that claim with a study which suggests there is enough evidence to deduce that this is the fundamental reason religious people become believers? In which case I might be willing to reconsider. I think it is much more likely however that the millions of people that believe in God do so for a multiplicity of varied reasons.

    We just want assurance that the world can be fixed, that mistakes can be rectified, that someone is watching over us.NKBJ

    several points here:

    1.first who is this 'we' you are referring to and why are you talking on behalf of others as though thats a legitimate argument? lol

    2.I’m pretty sure that most religious refer to the world as a place of chaos that ultimately ends in destruction? So I don’t agree that believers think the world can be fixed, but that suffering and an eventual end is inevitable.

    3. with regards to the point that wrongs will be rectified, this would be inline with divine justice yes, but I would also argue that, again, this isn’t necessarily a reason for belief in all cases (although it may be for some), but rather that it can also be a consequence of belief; that is, for the belief in God to manifest itself first, and then belief in divine justice to follow as a result.

    4. With regards to the next point, (that someone watches over us), this isn’t a consistently positive feeling as you suggest in this statement. Especially when one desires something one knows to be wrong, the feeling of being observed can be a really negative feeling in the sense that one wishes they could shake it. It is something I know can lead people to disbelief. They become sick of the sense of constant observance and feel sick of it making them feel guilty when they watch porn, or consume drugs, or act promiscuously and in order to act as they desire give up their faith. So it’s not as simple as you suggest in your response here.

    5. and where are your references for these scientific claims? I'm assuming they aren't referenced and that you're making assumptions because of the way you have stated it, but please be sure to supply evidence for claims put forward referring to the scientific method, as the scientific method itself requires you do so. There is no reason I should just take your word that this is true for all or most believers.

    If we just follow the rules, are good children, our dear Father will love us and protect us from all evilNKBJ

    Again this appears to me to be a very naive opinion and a clear straw man. Religious doctrines explicitly state that one will be tested with suffering and struggle, not be protected in some fantasy ideal environment from anything that may harm us. Religious people are perfectly capable of understanding that God has not put them in constant protection from evil simply because they are believers, but that they will be tested by it. The story of Job in the Old Testament is a perfect example of this an a sufficient rebuttal for this particular claim you’ve made here, along with the life of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad, whose life is filled with trails and tribulations in a not so safe world. All abrahamic religions especially show every prophet to be confronted with what the scripture refers to as Evil. They are explicitly exposed to it, and are said to be tested the most by it. They are offered a certain amount of protection, but so are non-believers. Everyone is given periods of respite, and are periodically plunged back into tribulation throughout life.

    Although in Islam Allah is not called "father," put together his 99 names, and you got the same thing.NKBJ

    I disagree, the 99 names are not a kin to a father at all. There may be examples that you could use to refer to a paternal nature in some limited respect, yes; but there are also names which could be described as somewhat maternal, and others which are completely unique to a creator, and can not be said to be attributed to a father figure or a mother figure.

    Examples:
    Al-Aziz ~ The Almighty
    Al-Jabbār ~The Irresistible
    Al-Khāliq ~ The Creator (of all things)
    Al-Bāri ~ The Designer (of all things)
    Al-Musawwir ~ The Fashioner of Forms
    Al-Fattāh ~ The Bestower of Victory
    As-Sami' ~ The All Seeing
    Al-'Adl ~ The Utterly Just
    Al-Khabir ~ The All Aware
    Al-Hafiz ~ The Preserver (of all things)
    Al-Wasi' ~ The Vast
    Al-Bā'ith ~ The Resurrector
    Al-Hamid ~ The All Praiseworthy
    Al-Mubdi' ~ The Originator
    Al-Mu'id ~ The Reinstater Who Brings Back All
    Al-Muhyiy ~ The Giver of Life
    Al-Wāhid ~ The Completely Unique
    As-Samad ~ The Eternal
    Al-Qādar ~ The Omnipotent

    so on and so on... These names in their purest sense are limited to the creator. You can make more limited versions of these names, and say for example that humans can create things. But the name Al-Khaliq doesn't refer to using things that already exist to make something thats a combination of other things, but that He creates things without haven't to rely on anything else.

    I think you are very much oversimplifying something quite complex and this is leading you to creating a strawman out of the motivations for potential reasons for belief. Although i’m Sure you may find people who fit the description of belief you are giving, you can in no way generalize this towards all believers. Again, this a fallacious and wild inference from what I suspect is a baseless intuition.

    Basically, god just fulfills a psychological need or emotional void that could be just as easily, and more productively fulfilled with real world endeavors.NKBJ

    No not basically. God may fulfil certain psychological needs, and emotional voids, but it doesn't follow from this that is the fundamental reason for every believer. Lol Also, it’s not like religious people are incapable of being productive in real world endeavors. There are numerous examples that completely disprove this wild accusation. Although you keep referring to the psychological, I doubt that you have any empirical references to back this generalising claim which you have conviently put forward as a widely accepted scientific, psychological truth.
    :p


    It doesn't add anything to the conversation to state that science isn't helpful in all things.NKBJ

    Yes it does. It shows that the answer to the question of how we all got here is not sufficiently solved by the scientific endeavour and possibly, due to its limits, may never be answered by it (although that doesn’t suggest it won’t either). Scientific arguments, so far, have not been sufficient enough to completely and independently motivate belief or disbelief in a creator.

    Science has a lot to say about the origin of the universeNKBJ

    Yes, and most of that raises more questions than it intended to answer. To establish motivation for disbelief, one needs to make wild generizations such as you have been doing thus far, rely on intuition (which is essentially a position of faith, not reason), or to make a straw man out of the idea of God which distorts and misrepresents conceptions of Him. This isn’t to say that theists aren’t also guilty of this in many cases as well. I have seen too many fallacious arguments which attempt to reason the existence of God and fail to do so sufficiently. The problem here is that proving a faulty argument as fallacious does not disprove the existence of God, it only proves that particular argument to be fallacious or insufficient as a proof for His existence.


    It hasn't solved it, but it's a better bet than relying on some stories people made up when they were in trances, or on drugs, or simply bored.NKBJ

    It may be a better bet than believing crazy bored drunk people yes, lol but again, you’re making accusations on the assumption of how revaluation came to be. It might very well have been the case for many people claiming to be prophets that they were drunk or bored.. but it doesn’t follow that every case of that happening was for these reasons, especially when you have no proof to suggest thats the case. Just simply making that claim isn’t a reasoned argument, it’s another intuition.

    We could just as easily say that about anyone given enough distance in time. People could claim that about us 100 years from now, reading this very conversation. It certainly wouldn’t be true that either of us said what we said for those reasons, but it isn’t something anyone can prove or refute given so much distance and with a lack of evidence. I would argue this adds nothing to your defence of science being sufficient to motivate disbelief, or religion as inherently a motivation for disbelief in itself.

    You may well be right, all revaluation might have actually come to fruition for those reasons. The problem is we can’t prove it either way, so if we wish to disprove the idea of God we have to rely on other means other than baseless personal accusations towards people that lived centuries prior to this conversation we have never met.


    It's pretty obvious too. If you have mountains of evidence for theory A, and not really anything in support of B, you go with A.NKBJ

    Don’t be so sure it’s obvious :L if it was there would be no believers at all. It’s a complex topic that most people (both believers and disbelievers) usually rely on intuition to answer.

    And what is this mountain of evidence you’re referring to? Lol you haven’t offered any evidence at all other than many vague, unrefferenced generalizations on the nature of a believer in a creator. Show me this evidence and we’ll discuss that before we can conclude that it’s obvious :p

    If you had cancer for instance, you'd go with the treatment with more evidence of its effectiveness.NKBJ

    Really? I find that most people appeal to authority such as trained professionals rather than to delve into the entirety of subject material. Or they appeal to the most common decision. Or they react emotionally due to the quite reasonable fear of death. Not many people demand to see evidence and proofs for every treatment of every illness even if it is true and the evidence is available. Many people are quite willing to rely on their intuition, and put their faith in medical professionals regardless of their lack of understanding in the subject. There are also other possible motivations for someone offering particular treatment, such as monetary profit fueled by greed or vindictive urges fueled by a malicious practitioner.

    I think the next step now is for you to offer this apparent evidence that God doesn’t exist, or that religions aren’t established by anything other than drunks, drug abusers or crazy people. Since their is mountains of it, that shouldn’t be hard to produce
    ;)
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    @NKBJ

    Sorry... I've just made a couple of edits to the above response to you. there were a few mistakes here and there I needed to rectify. Just to let you know incase you've already read some of it.

    I look forward to your response in the mean time.
  • Mr Phil O'Sophy
    966
    Maybe you haven't studied physics, biology, or chemistry much.... But how cells work, how energy comes together in atoms, the fact that your brain is basically one long blast of fireworks until you die with more neurons than there are stars in the Milky Way... That's simply amazing and awesome stuff. What's sad and boring is the perpetual need for more. Something bigger and better. You're missing out on the majesty of what is for some mystical nebula that simply isn't.

    You might have 30,000 days to live in this world, if you're lucky. Don't waste them on voodoo.
    NKBJ

    lol, this argument doesn't follow either. I have studied physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics and received a distinction on my diploma, and I don't have the same belief system as you and certainly don't see how what you've described in this comment can be considered as evidence against a creator. It says nothing more than the universe is a complex and beautiful place that is endlessly offering us more and more information the more we study it.

    To go from this to *THEREFORE THERE IS NO GOD*, is a massive jump in reasoning. And that conclusion simply does not follow, nor can it be considered rational; it is merely an intuitive response to something which strikes awe in the heart of someone who already disbelieves.

    Religious believers often make a very similar intuitive jump in reasoning but in the opposite direction. They often consider the beauty and complexity of the universe itself to be reason enough for belief in a creator. I would say that to make a conclusion on God either way (be that with belief or disbelief), based on this argument alone, is a faith based decision. Not a rational one.
  • Arne
    295
    Maybe you haven't studied physics, biology, or chemistry much.... But how cells work, how energy comes together in atoms, the fact that your brain is basically one long blast of fireworks until you die with more neurons than there are stars in the Milky Way... That's simply amazing and awesome stuff. What's sad and boring is the perpetual need for more. Something bigger and better. You're missing out on the majesty of what is for some mystical nebula that simply isn't.

    You might have 30,000 days to live in this world, if you're lucky. Don't waste them on voodoo.
    NKBJ

    That makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that only non-believers can be engaged in the mystery of being? And who said anything about needing more? Either there is more or there is not. I do not need more, do you? Needing or not needing makes no difference. It is almost as if you are arguing that appreciating the fireworks means there is no God.

    And I do not do voodoo, but thanks for caring. I think.
  • Arne
    295
    Maybe you haven't studied physics, biology, or chemistry much.... But how cells work, how energy comes together in atoms, the fact that your brain is basically one long blast of fireworks until you die with more neurons than there are stars in the Milky Way... That's simply amazing and awesome stuff. What's sad and boring is the perpetual need for more. Something bigger and better. You're missing out on the majesty of what is for some mystical nebula that simply isn't.

    You might have 30,000 days to live in this world, if you're lucky. Don't waste them on voodoo.
    NKBJ

    Unless you:
    1. believe only in that which can be perceived via the five senses;
    2. rely solely upon logical argument to support a belief;
    3. demand definitions of the indefinable; and
    4. demand empirical evidence when you know no such evidence is forthcoming.

    Unless you do the above four, then you are not a bore. Being a non-believer does not require you to be a bore.

    You might have 30,000 days to live in this world, if you're lucky. Don't waste them being a bore.

    And I do not do voodoo, but thanks for caring. I think.
  • NKBJ
    316


    You previously were suggesting that non-believers are bores, and that is what I was responding to. I didn't suggest that believers couldn't feel awe at the world, but I do think they get sidetracked with voodoo. And by voodoo, I mean believing in any kind of magic, whether that be voodoo, the Christian god, Norse gods, or the Tooth Fairy... It's all equally made up and childish.

    As to your list:
    1. Scientists and atheists do not only rely on their five senses. Not only do humans have more than five themselves, other animals have ones we don't have, and we have machines and experiments that prove that there are things humans are unable to sense. That doesn't mean ghosts, goblins, or gods exist.

    2. Arguing against logic is, well, illogical.

    3. It's self-refuting to call something undefinable, because once you define it thusly it is, well, defined. But apart from that, all things have qualities and attributes, even mystical and imaginary things, like pink, invisible unicorns.

    4. This is the dumbest of all your points. So you're saying when there is no empirical evidence that a person charged with murder is guilty, we should convict him of murder anyway, because no evidence somehow still means it's true? If there is no evidence for your claim, then that is pretty strong evidence that your claim is false.
  • Rank Amateur
    275
    . And by voodoo, I mean believing in any kind of magic, whether that be voodoo, the Christian god, Norse gods, or the Tooth Fairy... It's all equally made up and childish.NKBJ

    not an argument - just an aside. And maybe I am just more sensitive to it, but not sure the need to portray the theist position with such disparaging rhetoric. Is there some purpose for it?
  • NKBJ
    316


    Are you referring to "voodoo"? Because claiming that is disparaging is not just silly, it's racist. Why is the Christian or Muslim belief system any more credible than Voodoo? Which many people believe in and practice to this day.
    As for Norse gods and the Tooth Fairy, that's not disparaging, it's simply pointing to equally believable (i.e., not at all) myths and stories.
    As for "childish," if you read my earlier posts I'm making the general argument that there is a child-like, psychological desire to believe in gods, a need for parental care and a sense of security, etc. A grown-up who still believes in fairies and Santa is "childish," and anyone who believes in a divine being is equally so.
  • Arne
    295
    You previously were suggesting that non-believers are boresNKBJ

    I was suggesting no such thing.

    The criteria I listed applies to those who fit its bill. I never suggested it applied to all non-believers.

    You may rest assured, there are certain types of arguments advanced by believers that I consider to be just as boring. (and do not presume I am or am not a believer.).

    There is simply no point in discussing the existence/non-existence with anyone who believes they have a shut down argument.

    Doing so would be sort of . . . what is the word I am looking for. . . it is on the tip of my tongue. . . BORING.
  • NKBJ
    316
    The criteria I listed applies to those who fit its bill. I never suggested it applied to all non-believers.Arne

    Don't pretend now. We all know what you were saying. In a thread about whether one believes in a "creator." It's silly to now act like you weren't saying exactly that. However, like I've shown, your list is pretty much nonsense, so it really doesn't matter whom it fits.

    There is simply no point in discussing the existence/non-existence with anyone who believes they have a shut down argument.

    Doing so would be sort of . . . what is the word I am looking for. . . it is on the tip of my tongue. . . BORING.
    Arne

    What an ironic juxtaposition of statements. You clearly believe that you can shut down the argument on anyone whom you strongly disagree with.

    And your last statement of course is as childish as your beliefs.
  • csalisbury
    1.4k
    And by voodoo, I mean believing in any kind of magic, whether that be voodoo, the Christian god, Norse gods, or the Tooth Fairy... It's all equally made up and childish.NKBJ

    >God is like Santa Claus
    > There are more neurons in your head than stars in the milky way! [cue phillip glass]
    >Don't waste your 30,000 days
  • Arne
    295
    And your last statement of course is as childish as your beliefs.NKBJ

    are you offering this as an adult type statement?

    just asking?
  • Arne
    295
    You clearly believe that you can shut down the argument on anyone whom you strongly disagree with.NKBJ

    I never said there were no shut down arguments.

    I said there were no shut down arguments regarding the existence/nonexistence of God.

    And I sure as hell don't claim to have one of those, do you?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.