Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

blarg · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
Right. And you're so good at it. Mazel tov.

good now your getting it

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

Quag said:
Sure I have let you, What I dont let you do is claim that the suprenme beign is the only logical term to use in the argument as pretty much anythign can be used.

Not true EDAs, No God and invisible pixies are also concieved as necessary and none of them are God.

Sorry must have missed the other 3 arguments you made, Please post them and we can talk about them

Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, etc.. (I am being silly I assume you meant universes when you said worlds)
Now if you wish to use that as an argument you must elaborate.

The three arguments presented in this thread are the classics:
1. the ontological argument
2. the cosmological argument
3. the argument from design

And so you reject the very concept of God, and you refuse to acknowledge that you reject the very concept of God, but you still think we have something to talk about? How's that work?

Mach · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
And so you reject the very concept of God, and you refuse to acknowledge that you reject the very concept of God, but you still think we have something to talk about? How's that work?

He said he's entertained by your antics (my word).

What did you think you were doing? Really convincing someone that the concept of God is reasonable/logical, and worthy of scientific inquiry?

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

Mach said:
He said he's entertained by your antics (my word).

The day I need you to interpret for me, Mach, is the day I hang up my spurs.

Mach said:
What did you think you were doing? Really convincing someone that the concept of God is reasonable/logical, and worthy of scientific inquiry?

I thought I was talking with a reasonable fellow. I still do think that. That's the assumption I make going into any conversation. I made that assumption regarding you at first as well. But Quag has given me no reason to doubt that assumption in his case.

Still, I appreciate your solicitude. Thanks for dropping by.

Mach · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
The day I need you to interpret for me, Mach, is the day I hang up my spurs.

Oh don't tease, as if you'd every stop proselytizing.

It's the will of gawd after all isn't it?

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

Mach said:
Oh don't tease, as if you'd every stop proselytizing.

It's the will of gawd after all isn't it?

Do you have anything to say on the thread topic, Mach, or are you just trolling by?

blarg · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
The three arguments presented in this thread are the classics:
1. the ontological argument
2. the cosmological argument
3. the argument from design

And so you reject the very concept of God, and you refuse to acknowledge that you reject the very concept of God, but you still think we have something to talk about? How's that work?

and they have all failed along with your faulty model

Quag · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
The three arguments presented in this thread are the classics:
1. the ontological argument
2. the cosmological argument
3. the argument from design

None of those arguments comes close to proving God.
But as I have shown the argument you have been using doest not work at all as it can apply to anything.

And so you reject the very concept of God, and you refuse to acknowledge that you reject the very concept of God, but you still think we have something to talk about? How's that work?

Where have I rejected the concept of God? I have rejected your claims that EDAs as concieved by myself are God but since they are my conception only I can concieve them as the same or different from God. No God cannot be the same as God and invisible pixies while necessary had nothing to do with the creation of the universe and do not meet the criteria of God.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

1)

Angel said:
It stands to reason that a Supreme Being, if existing, would be supreme in its being, and unlike any other existing thing.
...

2)

Quag said:
That is half the statement now about the part that doesn't accord with reason?
...

3)

Angel said:
It follows that it does not stand to reason that a Supreme Being, if existing, would be like other existing things.
...

4)

Quag said:
Why does one accord with reason and the other does not? You havent dealt with the bolded
...

Angel said:
Because one makes sense, given the meaning of the word "supreme" and the meaning of the concept "Supreme Being," and the other does not make sense....

5)

Quag said:
Yes you have said that, I am asking why you are saying it does not make sense...

6)

Angel said:
That's all I have to say if you know the meanings of the word "supreme" and the concept "Supreme Being."
...

7)

Quag said:
Sorry I dont follow you....

8)

Angel said:
What is supreme is highest. A Supreme Being is the highest being. It makes no sense to assert the what is supreme among beings is the same as all the rest....

9)

Quag said:
You have yet to to prove a supreme being....

10)

Angel said:
It looks like you're dismissing the very concept of God, Quag. That leaves us nothing to discuss.
Of course the concept exists. But you seem to expect me to prove that the concept exists before we can discuss whether the concept refers to anything....

10)

Quag said:
We are talking about arguments for the existence of God you cannot start with God exists as the argument, you must prove it. That is the point of this thread....

11)

Angel said:
But I have to start with the concept of God -- a supreme being -- and you won't let me, you reject that out of hand.
...

12)

Quag said:
Sure I have let you, What I dont let you do is claim that the suprenme beign is the only logical term to use in the argument as pretty much anythign can be used....

13)

Quag said:
...
Where have I rejected the concept of God?
...

Above I have reproduced our exchanges on this matter. If you read through them, you'll see that I am talking about the concept, and you insist that I prove the existence of God before I can use the concept. Pay particular attention at the exchange at 8, 9 and 10.

soylentgreen · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
If you're only here to dismiss, there's nothing for us to discuss. Peace out, brother.

If you would prefer the word reject on the grounds that it makes no sense then i am happy to say that instead.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

blarg said:
and they have all failed along with your faulty model

No, they all succeed despite your assertions to the contrary.
And what, pray tell, is my "faulty model"? Are you able to say what it is? Or are you just about blanket dismissal?

William Rea · Nov 14, 2017

Mach said:
Oh don't tease, as if you'd every stop proselytizing.

It's the will of gawd after all isn't it?

Yup, and that is exactly what it is.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

soylentgreen said:
If you would prefer the word reject on the grounds that it makes no sense then i am happy to say that instead.

A euphemism doesn't change anything, I'm afraid.

William Rea · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
No, they all succeed despite your assertions to the contrary.
And what, pray tell, is my "faulty model"? Are you able to say what it is? Or are you just about blanket dismissal?

Produce your immaterial, produce your god. You can't show it because you don't know it.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

William Rea said:
Produce your immaterial, produce your god. You can't show it because you don't know it.

Everything is immaterial. So produce your material.
There are three proofs of God's existence posted in this thread. Read 'em and weep.

William Rea · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
Everything is immaterial. So produce your material.
There are three proofs of God's existence posted in this thread. Read 'em and weep.

Produce your immaterial, produce your god. You can't show it because you don't know it.

This has been the same point from the very first post you made on here, you have nothing but philosophistry which is apologetics that you poorly try to disguise as philosophy. You are proselytising in pretense which is pretty much a dishonest position to hold since you have to apologise for having no evidence and then pretend that you do. You can't show it, you don't know it.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
Everything is immaterial. So produce your material.
There are three proofs of God's existence posted in this thread. Read 'em and weep.

William Rea said:
Produce your immaterial, produce your god. You can't show it because you don't know it.

This has been the same point from the very first post you made on here, you have nothing but philosophistry which is apologetics that you poorly try to disguise as philosophy. You are proselytising in pretense which is pretty much a dishonest position to hold since you have to apologise for having no evidence and then pretend that you do. You can't show it, you don't know it.

The dishonest posts are yours, my friend. I've answered your demands from the very first, but you persist in repeating the demands and ignoring my good faith posts in reply. Your posts are the ones in bad faith here. Moreover, three classic arguments for the existence of God have been posted by me in this thread, and you've either ignored or dismissed them out of hand. You bring nothing to the discussion table but your overall arch demurrer. You're not interested in discussion, so dial back the pretense that you are.

William Rea · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
The dishonest posts are yours, my friend. I've answered your demands from the very first, but you persist in repeating the demands and ignoring my good faith posts in reply. Your posts are the ones in bad faith here. Moreover, three classic arguments for the existence of God have been posted by me in this thread, and you've either ignored or dismissed them out of hand. You bring nothing to the discussion table but your overall arch demurrer. You're not interested in discussion, so dial back the pretense that you are.

Three arguments that you use to argue for something, that did something somewhere at some point to which you point and call it God: They are not valid arguments because they are based upon incorrect assumptions.

You have been told, shown and destroyed on this point several times and yet here you are recycling your apologetic in a pseudo philosophical way, it's clever only in as much as it superficially looks like you are arguing in a skeptical framework rather than directly proselytising but, in fact, that IS what you are doing. Nobody of consequence is fooled on here and I suspect many are repelled by attempts at lying in the name of a supposedly perfect god.

Produce your immaterial, produce your god.

Mach · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
Everything is immaterial. So produce your material.

Everything is immaterial.
Angel is included in the set of everything.
Therefore, Angel is immaterial.

Did it work? Did he disappear into nothingness?

I suppose I'll have to settle for reducing your argument to absurdity.

William Rea · Nov 14, 2017

Mach said:
Everything is immaterial.
Angel is included in the set of everything.
Therefore, Angel is immaterial.

Did it work? Did he disappear into nothingness?

I suppose I'll have to settle for reducing your argument to absurdity.

Nice exemplar. Sound logic and sound premises.

RAMOSS · Nov 14, 2017

Mach said:
Everything is immaterial.
Angel is included in the set of everything.
Therefore, Angel is immaterial.

Did it work? Did he disappear into nothingness?

I suppose I'll have to settle for reducing your argument to absurdity.

I think brick falling to the ground onto his foot would break it.. as predicted by the material theory.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

RAMOSS said:
I think brick falling to the ground onto his foot would break it.. as predicted by the material theory.

Dr. Johnson, I presume?

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

William Rea said:
Three arguments that you use to argue for something, that did something somewhere at some point to which you point and call it God: They are not valid arguments because they are based upon incorrect assumptions.

Which assumptions are these you refer to?

William Rea said:
You have been told, shown and destroyed on this point several times and yet here you are recycling your apologetic in a pseudo philosophical way, it's clever only in as much as it superficially looks like you are arguing in a skeptical framework rather than directly proselytising but, in fact, that IS what you are doing. Nobody of consequence is fooled on here and I suspect many are repelled by attempts at lying in the name of a supposedly perfect god.
...

Members "of consequence"? I wonder what you mean by that? Presumably you include yourself, so the answer should come easy to you.
Meanwhile, keep telling yourself those arguments have been refuted. Maybe someday your dream will come true.
And please learn the meaning of the word proselytize. It ill becomes anyone to misuse a word, and persistent misuse is worse still.

Angel · Nov 14, 2017

Mach said:
Everything is immaterial.
Angel is included in the set of everything.
Therefore, Angel is immaterial.

Did it work? Did he disappear into nothingness?

I suppose I'll have to settle for reducing your argument to absurdity.

To be sure you've achieved a reduction to absurdity, but not in the way you believe you have.
And what "argument" do you imagine you're reducing? Can you point it out to the rest of us?
Finally, you confuse immateriality with nothingness. Look to it.

William Rea · Nov 14, 2017

Angel said:
Which assumptions are these you refer to?

Members "of consequence"? I wonder what you mean by that? Presumably you include yourself, so the answer should come easy to you.
Meanwhile, keep telling yourself those arguments have been refuted. Maybe someday your dream will come true.
And please learn the meaning of the word proselytize. It ill becomes anyone to misuse a word, and persistent misuse is worse still.

That may be so but, you are unable to produce your immaterial. You are unable to produce your god. Your philosophistry is an apologetics pig that you have tried and failed to put various shades of lipstick on. Your argument is a busted flush of proselytising that any snake oil salesman would be ok with. For those that turn a buck from doing it, at least they are profiting from deceiving for Jesus. You would appear to be making an amateur argument in all respects without even that consolation.

You simply can't show it because you simply don't know it.