• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Arguments for the existence of God[W:740]

Angel said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

William Rea said:
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.
Click to expand...
Voila!
Same post you've posted a hundred times over, William. Verbatim and nearly so, both. If you're not going to engage the arguments I've posted, if you're going to ignore my good faith replies, what really is the point of this persistent snarling at me?
 
Angel said:
Voila!
Same post you've posted a hundred times over, William. Verbatim and nearly so, both. If you're not going to engage the arguments I've posted, if you're going to ignore my good faith replies, what really is the point of this persistent snarling at me?
Click to expand...

You can't show it because you don't know it. Your arguments are based upon a foundation of apologetics quicksand. Apologists do everything but actually produce their immaterial or their god. I am engaging in a skeptical questioning of your unjustified assumption. You are merely constructing an apologetic with a facade of philosophistry in lieu of producing what you claim to 'know'. You want me to presuppose your immaterial, your god, and I will never do that because I have integrity. It doesn't matter what shade of lipstick you choose, it's still a pig of an argument.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
You can't show it because you don't know it. Your arguments are based upon a foundation of apologetics quicksand. Apologists do everything but actually produce their immaterial or their god. I am engaging in a skeptical questioning of your unjustified assumption. You are merely constructing an apologetic with a facade of philosophistry in lieu of producing what you claim to 'know'. You want me to presuppose your immaterial, your god, and I will never do that because I have integrity. It doesn't matter what shade of lipstick you choose, it's still a pig of an argument.
Click to expand...
So I'll ask you again to identify what you're calling my "unjustified assumption"?
 
Angel said:
So I'll ask you again to identify what you're calling my "unjustified assumption"?
Click to expand...
Produce your immaterial.

If you can't show it, you don't know it.
 
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?
Click to expand...

you say they do despite every problem raised with all of them that you have yet to squirm out of

the old if god is possible it has to be the only kind of unmoved mover that you totes need

and something necessary has to exist

since i say god would be the only kind of unmoved mover and that we totes need 1

im going to keep assuming we need 1 and that because god is possibly necessary so im going to just declare it necessary and so real
 
Last edited:
blarg said:
you say they do despite every problem raised with all of them that you have yet to squirm out of

the old if god is possible it has to be the only kind of unmoved mover that you totes need

and something necessary has to exist

since i say god would be the only kind of unmoved mover and that we totes need 1

im going to keep assuming we need 1 and that because god is possibly necessary so im going to just declare it necessary and so real
Click to expand...
The only problem with these classical proofs of God's existence, blarg, the only problem highlighted by the three or four members who tried to engage them or who tried to dismiss them, was the problem these three or four members had in understanding these classical proofs of God's existence. I wasted two hundred posts in this thread trying to explain to these four stalwarts the meaning of logical possibility and ontological necessity -- to no avail.

And what word is "totes" supposed to be in your post. I don't recognize it and only half make out what you're saying there. As to the half I follow, you seem to be saying that there needn't be only one candidate for unmoved mover and for necessary being. Am I right? Well, why don't you demonstrate your good faith here and to begin with tell us what you understand by those terms, "unmoved mover" and necessary being," okay? I'm up for bit of Show & Tell today.
 
William Rea said:
You can't show it because you don't know it. Your arguments are based upon a foundation of apologetics quicksand. Apologists do everything but actually produce their immaterial or their god. I am engaging in a skeptical questioning of your unjustified assumption. You are merely constructing an apologetic with a facade of philosophistry in lieu of producing what you claim to 'know'. You want me to presuppose your immaterial, your god, and I will never do that because I have integrity. It doesn't matter what shade of lipstick you choose, it's still a pig of an argument. [Bolding and font increase, mine]
Click to expand...

Angel said:
So I'll ask you again to identify what you're calling my "unjustified assumption"?
Click to expand...

William Rea said:
Produce your immaterial.

If you can't show it, you don't know it.
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Answer the question. What is my "unjustified assumption" in the arguments made in this thread?
Click to expand...

William Rea said:
Produce your immaterial.
Click to expand...
Pshaw! A man of integrity does not bear false witness against his neighbor, now does he, William? What is this so-called "unjustified assumption" of mine?
 
Angel said:
Pshaw! A man of integrity does not bear false witness against his neighbor, now does he, William? What is this so-called "unjustified assumption" of mine?
Click to expand...
Produce your immaterial, your god. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
 
William Rea said:
Keep putting different shades of lipstick on the pig of an argument and, I'll keep wiping them off until you bring home the bacon and produce your immaterial.
Click to expand...
William Rea said:
...It doesn't matter what shade of lipstick you choose, it's still a pig of an argument.
Click to expand...
xLwWXqG.jpg
Angel Trismegistus and his Argument circa 2017


A Brief History Of: 'Putting Lipstick on a Pig'
It's a phrase common in the car sales industry, used to describe taking a hunk of junk, brushing on a fresh coat of paint and selling it for full price. Now, in the wake of Barack Obama's use of the saying and the McCain/Palin attacks against him over it, "putting lipstick on a pig" has become the latest flashpoint in the presidential campaign circus. But politicians and average joes have tossed around the folksy phrase long before this recent bump on the campaign trail. A sampling:
A Brief History Of: 'Putting Lipstick on a Pig' - TIME

Lipstick on a pig
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_on_a_pig

"Lipstick on a pig" phrase cluster: 61 different variants
MemeTracker: Variants of the "lipstick on a pig" quote

Who First Put "Lipstick on a Pig"?
The origins of the porcine proverb.
The famous maxim that "You can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" dates back at least to the mid-16th century. Other old sayings play on the ludicrousness of a pig getting dressed up. "A hog in armour is still but a hog" was recorded in 1732 by British physician Thomas Fuller. As Francis Grose later explained in A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), a "hog in armour" alludes to "an awkward or mean looking man or woman, finely dressed." Charles H. Spurgeon noted another variation in his 1887 compendium of proverbs, The Salt-Cellars: "A hog in a silk waistcoat is still a hog," meaning, "Circumstances do not alter a man's nature, nor even his manners."

The "lipstick" variation is relatively novel—not surprising, since the word lipstick itself dates only to 1880. The incongruity of pigs and cosmetics was expressed as early as 1926 by the colorful editor Charles F. Lummis, writing in the Los Angeles Times: "Most of us know as much of history as a pig does of lipsticks." But the exact wording of "putting lipstick on a pig (or hog)" doesn't show up until much later. In 1985, the Washington Post quoted a San Francisco radio host on plans for renovating Candlestick Park (instead of building a new downtown stadium for the Giants): "That would be like putting lipstick on a pig."
Where does the expression "lipstick on a pig" come from?
Click to expand...

The preceding linguistic sidebar has been brought to you by The Bratwurst Group.
 
Angel said:
The only problem with these classical proofs of God's existence, blarg, the only problem highlighted by the three or four members who tried to engage them or who tried to dismiss them, was the problem these three or four members had in understanding these classical proofs of God's existence. I wasted two hundred posts in this thread trying to explain to these four stalwarts the meaning of logical possibility and ontological necessity -- to no avail.

And what word is "totes" supposed to be in your post. I don't recognize it and only half make out what you're saying there. As to the half I follow, you seem to be saying that there needn't be only one candidate for unmoved mover and for necessary being. Am I right? Well, why don't you demonstrate your good faith here and to begin with tell us what you understand by those terms, "unmoved mover" and necessary being," okay? I'm up for bit of Show & Tell today.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you can't even tell us what god is. You are more concerned with so-called proof than the implications of that proof. Your inability to define god makes it immune from analysis. Why is this concept of god even worth discussing? What exactly are you going on about and why does it even matter?
 
Angel said:
...snipped to save bandwidth...The preceding linguistic sidebar has been brought to you by The Bratwurst Group.
Click to expand...
But it hasn't produced your immaterial, your god.

You can't show it, you don't know it.
 
soylentgreen said:
I was not being euphamistic I was talking very plainly. You have failed to give me any reason to consider your god anything more than imagination.
Click to expand...

Which is really why I've given up responding to a lot of these religious retards. It's like trying to debate people who believe in an invisible, intangible, totally undetectable dragon living on a planet circling Alpha Centauri. How do they know it's there? They "just do". They don't have to prove it to anyone and they don't even bother. But they can't shut up about it when it's pointed out that they have no credible reason to believe it and no one has any rational reason to take them seriously. Ultimately, we're talking to crazy people. I've got better things to do than go around and around with the insane.
 
Angel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually you didnt go back far enough, it started here.
I accept that the argument works on both my rational conception of God and your irrational misconception of God
Click to expand...
I then asked why is one rational one not, Upon rereading the text I think we have been discussing 2 different subjects.
The concepts I put forward were not concepts of God put concepts of things other than God. I was assuming that your post meant only your concept of God is rational and any concept without God is irrational. I now see you were actually calling my concepts God, though Istill dont see how they would be irrational. If I am incorrect please explain why otherwise we will continue to have a disjointed conversation.

Our back on forth was based on my part about trying to get you to explain why you felt my concepts were irrational and as far as I could tell you were saying your concept is rational because it is about a supreme being that exists. Hence my problem with you appearing to assert a claim as proof that the concept is true and thus rational while not explaining why my counter concepts are irrational.

So lets try and get back on track

Why are my concepts irrational?
 
Cephus said:
Which is really why I've given up responding to a lot of these religious retards. It's like trying to debate people who believe in an invisible, intangible, totally undetectable dragon living on a planet circling Alpha Centauri. How do they know it's there? They "just do". They don't have to prove it to anyone and they don't even bother. But they can't shut up about it when it's pointed out that they have no credible reason to believe it and no one has any rational reason to take them seriously. Ultimately, we're talking to crazy people. I've got better things to do than go around and around with the insane.
Click to expand...

He gives a very good example of what i accused him of at the start. That he relies on a hidden premise that we must start fom a point that a god might exist. Why we must is not only never explained but we are accused of being rude for asking.
 
soylentgreen said:
He gives a very good example of what i accused him of at the start. That he relies on a hidden premise that we must start fom a point that a god might exist. Why we must is not only never explained but we are accused of being rude for asking.
Click to expand...

Presuppositional apologetics, the most dishonest kind.
 
Cephus said:
Which is really why I've given up responding to a lot of these religious retards. It's like trying to debate people who believe in an invisible, intangible, totally undetectable dragon living on a planet circling Alpha Centauri. How do they know it's there? They "just do". They don't have to prove it to anyone and they don't even bother. But they can't shut up about it when it's pointed out that they have no credible reason to believe it and no one has any rational reason to take them seriously. Ultimately, we're talking to crazy people. I've got better things to do than go around and around with the insane.
Click to expand...
Thus Spake the Great Cephus: "religious retards" ... "no credible reason" ... "crazy people" ...

There are three classic arguments for the existence of God posted in this thread, formulated by some of the greatest minds that ever graced our world:
1. the ontological proof
2. the cosmological proof
3. the teleological proof

Do you know what those big words mean? Have you even tried to read those arguments?

You want "reasons"? Here are eight, each followed by an argument, posted earlier at #608:

Eight Reasons in Support of God’s Existence

(I) God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.

(II) God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

(III) God is the best explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world.

(IV) God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

(V) God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

(VI) God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

VII) The very possibility of God’s existence implies that God exists.

(VIII) God can be personally known and experienced.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist
Click to expand...

But if you've got "better things to do," then I suggest you do them. Based on the attitude expressed in your post, this stuff is way over your head, pilgrim.
 
soylentgreen said:
I was not being euphamistic I was talking very plainly. You have failed to give me any reason to consider your god anything more than imagination.
Click to expand...
What reason can be given to a dismissalist? I respect your skepticism. Go in peace.
 
Angel said:
Thus Spake the Great Cephus: "religious retards" ... "no credible reason" ... "crazy people" ...

There are three classic arguments for the existence of God posted in this thread, formulated by some of the greatest minds that ever graced our world:
1. the ontological proof
2. the cosmological proof
3. the teleological proof

Do you know what those big words mean? Have you even tried to read those arguments?

You want "reasons"? Here are eight, each followed by an argument, posted earlier at #608:



But if you've got "better things to do," then I suggest you do them. Based on the attitude expressed in your post, this stuff is way over your head, pilgrim.
Click to expand...

None of which has produced your immaterial, your god.

You can't show it, you don't know it.
 
devildavid said:
The problem is that you can't even tell us what god is. You are more concerned with so-called proof than the implications of that proof. Your inability to define god makes it immune from analysis. Why is this concept of god even worth discussing? What exactly are you going on about and why does it even matter?
Click to expand...
What I'm "going on about" matters as much as what you're going on about, David, and that is exactly not at all.
Your Weltanschauung is your Weltanschauung; mine is mine.
I'm a happy man. If I believed what you believe, I'd be in despair.
But if you've found happiness in an absurd world, I'm happy for you.
If you haven't read it, I'd strongly recommend that you read Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. It's an essay on how to be heroically happy in an absurd world.


William Rea said:
But it hasn't produced your immaterial, your god.

You can't show it, you don't know it.
Click to expand...
Identify what you've called my "unjustified assumption" in this thread.
Fish or cut bait, man.
 
Angel said:
What I'm "going on about" matters as much as what you're going on about, David, and that is exactly not at all.
Your Weltanschauung is your Weltanschauung; mine is mine.
I'm a happy man. If I believed what you believe, I'd be in despair.
But if you've found happiness in an absurd world, I'm happy for you.
If you haven't read it, I'd strongly recommend that you read Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus. It's an essay on how to be heroically happy in an absurd world.



Identify what you've called my "unjustified assumption" in this thread.
Fish or cut bait, man.
Click to expand...

But you avoid answering the key question. What exactly is this god that you, in particular, are talking about? An argument for the existence of god is insufficient as it stands. It even allows that the god concept does not have to be literally "real" to be of some sort of importance. Although I'm not sure how a concept, an idea, can be considered an objective part of reality except in the context of human societies. Our concepts of reality do not create reality, but are attempts to describe it. A concept can be useful, but an idea alone is ephemeral. The fact that we can all imagine things does not mean anything beyond that. If you think that a non-defined god is sufficient, I disagree. Higher power, supreme being, all really mean nothing without more details. What makes it higher and supreme? Higher than what? If we can all fill in in this blank god with whatever we want I don't see real value in that.

As to happiness, that is as vague as your god. No one is perfectly happy all of the time. Being happy because of a belief is no more viable than being happy because of a lack of one. Simply believing in something is not akin to happiness. Happiness needs reasons. You leave out all the details that would explain that. Why exactly are you happy? I am content in my view of things, but I don't expect it to be a source of happiness nor unhappiness. It is only a starting point.
 
William Rea said:
None of which has produced your immaterial, your god.

You can't show it, you don't know it.
Click to expand...

And because he doesn't even try, I threw a lot of theists on my ignore list a long time ago. It's easier to ignore the religious insanity than to try to argue against the emotional rationalizations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom