Challenge; Can you argue a case you don't actually agree with?

[Quag]

Therefore, I exist!!!

The multiverse theory in quantum mechanics says you are a banana split

 

[sangha]

The multiverse theory in quantum mechanics says you are a banana split

Yes but in those other universes, there's no maraschino cherries and without them, it's not a banana split

Ergo, I do not exist!!

 

[ecofarm]

Given all this and plenty of other lucky things it is quite reasonable for the Earth to be the only planet in this galaxy which is capable of supporting decently advanced land life. There may well be life all over the place, I expect there is, but it is unlikely to be more impressive than a worm unless it's on a planet as lucky as Earth.[/COLOR]

False.

I'll start I'm an atheist. I have a good argument for justifying God, or at least divine intervention in the development of humanity.

Can you see why it's wrong and can you do better with any other topic or the same?

The desire to ponder and express ideas about things beyond our control or even perception is part of human nature. As inquisitive beings, we cannot help but explore frontiers be they geographic or philosophic. Doomed with this capacity, a belief in right and wrong, good and evil, according to ideas that are neither concrete nor absolute has shaped the development of mankind. Within religion and other social objects are reflected a common will for a better tomorrow.

 

[Quag]

Yes but in those other universes, there's no maraschino cherries and without them, it's not a banana split

Ergo, I do not exist!!

You just disprouved your own existence.
I think the universe should implode any minute now.

 

[sangha]

You just disprouved your own existence.

That's OK. I never believed in myself to begin with

It drove my teachers mad

 

[Tim the plumber]

It's ironic that you started a thread asking people to argue an idea they didn't believe in and everyone ended up arguing what they did believe in

Except me. I think I'm the only one who rose to your challenge

I think phattonez is an atheist actually and is arguing for the existence of God. Sadly I was hoping that this thread would allow the development of better arguments and styles not just the same old drivel.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I've been working with a messed up back all week and you're at home because of a 'lil muscle?

I've worked through plenty of back problems. I had also worked through the leg for 2 weeks and it was just getting worse. There was sod all to do at work so I took the moment and now the leg is better.

 

[Tim the plumber]

False.




The desire to ponder and express ideas about things beyond our control or even perception is part of human nature. As inquisitive beings, we cannot help but explore frontiers be they geographic or philosophic. Doomed with this capacity, a belief in right and wrong, good and evil, according to ideas that are neither concrete nor absolute has shaped the development of mankind. Within religion and other social objects are reflected a common will for a better tomorrow.

Was that meant to be an example of your debating skills? Were you attempting to show how my argument that Earth/humanity is just too lucky to be this good by chance is wrong?

I mean I think I know why it is but that does not at all say why; "False, because we all wonder about stuff." hardy cuts it.

 

[ecofarm]

Was that meant to be an example of your debating skills? Were you attempting to show how my argument that Earth/humanity is just too lucky to be this good by chance is wrong?

I mean I think I know why it is but that does not at all say why; "False, because we all wonder about stuff." hardy cuts it.

Your argument was based on a false premise.

My argument is based on human nature and the benefit of personal expression.

Mine wins.

My argument in no way attempts to counter yours, as that is clearly not necessary. My argument is simply a better attempt to argue the position you presented.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Your argument was based on a false premise.

My argument is based on human nature and the benefit of personal expression.

Mine wins.

If my argument is based on a false premise then you have failed to show it.

What is you argument? That we all ponder about stuff like the nature of the universe? Is that it? Is that an argument?

 

[ecofarm]

If my argument is based on a false premise then you have failed to show it.

If you can't notice by looking at it, I can't help.

What is you argument? That we all ponder about stuff like the nature of the universe? Is that it? Is that an argument?

My argument is that "divine intervention" has been a benefit to the development of mankind. And it's far superior to your hogwash about "if things are complicated and pretty, there must be a God".

 

[Fearandloathing]

How could an omnipotent god screw planet Earth up so bad that he had to send his son, Jesus Christ to try to straighten out the mess?

Explain that, if you can. :roll:

He didn't screw it up...we did.

God doesn't "allow" evil to happen, he gives us free will. Atheists love to blame the God they don't believe in for every evil on the face of the earth....but what you're really saying "If there is a God, he should eliminate evil."

Have you ever done anything wrong you knew was wrong? He would have to eliminate you and me and every other ass hole on the face of the earth

 

[rhinefire]

Try creating a positive position for a politician from the opposite party you favor. Not easy.

 

[shrubnose]

He didn't screw it up...we did.

God doesn't "allow" evil to happen, he gives us free will. Atheists love to blame the God they don't believe in for every evil on the face of the earth....but what you're really saying "If there is a God, he should eliminate evil."

Have you ever done anything wrong you knew was wrong?

He would have to eliminate you and me and every other ass hole on the face of the earth

The fact that he hasn't done this is all the proof that I need that he doesn't exist.

 

[Tim the plumber]

If you can't notice by looking at it, I can't help.

That is hardly likely to get you much respect as a debater. Saying that the word "False" is good as a whole argument. Very poor performance.

My argument is that "divine intervention" has been a benefit to the development of mankind. And it's far superior to your hogwash about "if things are complicated and pretty, there must be a God".

If you made such an argument I missed it. All I got was that we wonder about stuff.

Where is your evidence of divine intervention? Can you refute my argument for the collective luckyness of the Earth and humanity being decent evidence?

 

[ecofarm]

That is hardly likely to get you much respect as a debater. Saying that the word "False" is good as a whole argument. Very poor performance.

I'll tell ya a more poor performance, claiming "things are complicated and pretty so God must exist". That's ignorant BS and meaningless.

At least my argument is grounded in a real premise regarding the impact of religion on society and development.

If you made such an argument I missed it. All I got was that we wonder about stuff.

No surprise.

Where is your evidence of divine intervention?

There is none. My argument is based upon the value of man pondering such things.

Can you refute my argument for the collective luckyness of the Earth and humanity being decent evidence?

It's a stupid argument, as explained herein. It's merely the foundation of Intelligent Design. I see your "argument" every time I read the back cover of a WatchTower pamphlet.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
That is hardly likely to get you much respect as a debater. Saying that the word "False" is good as a whole argument. Very poor performance.

I'll tell ya a more poor performance, claiming "things are complicated and pretty so God must exist". That's ignorant BS and meaningless.

At least my argument is grounded in a real premise regarding the impact of religion on society and development.

If you made such an argument I missed it. All I got was that we wonder about stuff.

No surprise.

Where is your evidence of divine intervention?

There is none. My argument is based upon the value of man pondering such things.

Can you refute my argument for the collective luckyness of the Earth and humanity being decent evidence?

It's a stupid argument, as explained herein. It's merely the foundation of Intelligent Design.

Look, I don't think that the argument I put forward is correct. Or at least I don't think it shows that there is a God who has created the universe. I do think there is some sort of reasonable case to say that some power is at least gardening the Earth/humanity. This would not surprise me. I remain an atheist.

I see not connection to intelligent design at all. The process of our development is clearly evolutionary.

You seem to have missed the thrust of this thread. You are meant to put forward your argument for something you don't believe in or secondly show off your debating skills and make yourself look good by cleverly dismantling somebody else's argument.

 

[ecofarm]

Look, I don't think that the argument I put forward is correct.

You can push ID as some "atheist argument for divine intervention", but it is what it is.

My argument is recognizing the impact of metaphysical expression on social development.

 

[Paschendale]

During law school, I had a lot of practice making cases that I disagreed with. But that was generally with situations designed to be fuzzy.

Unfortunately, mythology isn't fuzzy. When they brought back the formal debates section here, I actually wanted to try a reverse debate to argue a pro-god position as an exercise. I couldn't think of a single argument that I couldn't dispel instantly. Every argument for god is pretty terrible. The OP's, for example, doesn't actually make an argument for any kind of god. It just says that the present circumstances seem unlikely. But unlikely things happen all the time, and in a universe as vast as ours, over the course of 14 billion years, possibly in a multiverse that may even be infinitely huge and have an infinite amount of time to work with (pure speculation on my part), lots of unlikely things are going to happen. The anthropic argument presupposes that humans are important, for which there is no evidence, and presupposes that there is some kind of purpose to our existence, for which there is also no evidence. It's a crappy argument.

In addition, it attributes far too much to chance. We are here because we were best suited for our environment, not because we were lucky. Survival through the evolutionary process of natural selection is the exact opposite of luck. What appears in the first place is random (though there is sufficient time and space for nearly limitless types of species to appear), and what survives is not random at all. Likewise, Earth's specialness as a planet with life becomes less and less certain every day. It is entirely possible that the universe (or even our galaxy) is teeming with life. And sentient life might actually have to look roughly human in order to survive the evolutionary process. It might genuinely require being a bipedal mammal who lives in the temperature and pressure range for liquid water.

Meanwhile, the formation of stars and galaxies isn't particularly random, either. It is instead the natural consequence of the physical laws that govern our universe. Stars fuse heavier elements. Gravity pulls things together. And of course, while the anthropic argument (aka the fine tuned universe argument) is nonsense, the anthropic principle demonstrates very simply that if we did not live in a universe that could support our existence, then we wouldn't be here to talk about it. So we could never find ourselves in a universe that didn't appear to the casual observer to be fine tuned for us. The OP's argument is one of many theological arguments that only works in the absence of scientific knowledge that we already have.

And of course, even if the fine tuning argument proved divine intervention, it doesn't prove any specific divinity. It could just as easily be used as evidence for Shiva or Amon Ra as the western god. It is, like all the other pro-god arguments, simply a bad argument. I know of no pro-god arguments that cannot be similarly dispelled very quickly.

 

[RAMOSS]

If you can't notice by looking at it, I can't help.



My argument is that "divine intervention" has been a benefit to the development of mankind. And it's far superior to your hogwash about "if things are complicated and pretty, there must be a God".

Can you provide an example of 'dvine intervention' that does not have a more mundane explanation?

 

[ecofarm]

Can you provide an example of 'dvine intervention' that does not have a more mundane explanation?

From an atheist perspective?

 

[RAMOSS]

From an atheist perspective?

From any kind of rational perspective.

 

[ecofarm]

From any kind of rational perspective.

Well...

Here is a thread where I would like to see the best arguments made for cases you don't actually believe in. I'll start I'm an atheist. I have a good argument for justifying God, or at least divine intervention in the development of humanity.

Sorry, that's all I got for justifying God in the development of humanity from a non-deity perspective.

Can you see why it's wrong and can you do better with any other topic or the same?

The OP's is wrong because it's Intelligent Design and that's not an atheist argument for God's justification in the development of humanity.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The OP's is wrong because it's Intelligent Design and that's not an atheist argument for God's justification in the development of humanity.

That's a very poor statement in terms of debating skill because;

1 Just saying something is wrong (in this case intelligent design) without showing why it's wrong is never going to be persuasive.

and

2

an atheist argument for God's justification in the development of humanity

is self contradictory. Do you mean a scientifically based argument for there being evidence of God's involvement in the development of humans?

 

[ecofarm]

That's a very poor statement in terms of debating skill because;

I have a debating hint for you. Colored font is nuts and difficult to take seriously.