• 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!

Internet Skepticism: Casting Call

Angel said:
You're correct about faith and you'd be correct about me were I talking about or from the perspective of religion. I'm not.
I'm not about religion in my threads -- I'm all about the philosophical question of the existence of God.
Moreover, I argue for and make a distinction between the question of God's existence and the question of the nature of God. See here:
https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/349532-god-question.html#post1069773824
The 1001 world religions are about the nature of God taken on faith.
My philosophical interest is in the existence of God alone.
Click to expand...

And your only evidence is faith
 
vegas giants said:
And your only evidence is faith
Click to expand...
No, you're projecting wildly, Bell & Howell. My evidence is you and me and the consciousness we share and the universe in which we share that consciousness, phenomena inexplicable without God.
 
Angel said:
No, you're projecting wildly, Bell & Howell. My evidence is you and me and the consciousness we share and the universe in which we share that consciousness, phenomena inexplicable without God.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the universe that requires god to exist
 
vegas giants said:
There is nothing in the universe that requires god to exist
Click to expand...
If what you say is true, then what can you offer in the way of explanation for the existence of the universe, the existence of life on Earth, and the existence of consciousness?
 
Angel said:
If what you say is true, then what can you offer in the way of explanation for the existence of the universe, the existence of life on Earth, and the existence of consciousness?
Click to expand...

It has always existed. We started as a initial singularity and we will return to one and start all over. There is no evidence for a start or end to any of that
 
vegas giants said:
It has always existed. We started as a initial singularity and we will return to one and start all over. There is no evidence for a start or end to any of that
Click to expand...
And there's no evidence for your initial singularity.
 
Angel said:
And there's no evidence for your initial singularity.
Click to expand...

It's a theory with indirect evidence. There are also alternative theories such as the big bounce. There is no scientific evidence for god
 
vegas giants said:
It's a theory with indirect evidence. There are also alternative theories such as the big bounce. There is no scientific evidence for god
Click to expand...
Science ends with the Big Bang already in progress. There are no "theories" about what happened before that; there's only speculation.
 
Angel said:
Science ends with the Big Bang already in progress. There are no "theories" about what happened before that; there's only speculation.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There are theories. Thete are even theories that say the big bang did not happen. They involve indirect evidence often using string theory.


But there is no scientific agency on the planet that puts forth a scientific evidence of God
 
vegas giants said:
Wrong. There are theories. Thete are even theories that say the big bang did not happen. They involve indirect evidence often using string theory.


But there is no scientific agency on the planet that puts forth a scientific evidence of God
Click to expand...
Scientific theories require evidence. There is no evidence for anything before one Planck second into the Big Bang. It's sheer speculation what happened before that.
 
Angel said:
Scientific theories require evidence. There is no evidence for anything before one Planck second into the Big Bang. It's sheer speculation what happened before that.
Click to expand...

Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using*loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of*Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a*cyclic model*of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different*physical constants.[3]*Another procreation based on*M-theory*and observations of the*cosmic microwave background*(CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a*multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of*quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[6]

I can cite the studies associated with these theories.



But let's see your evidence
 
vegas giants said:
Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using*loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of*Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a*cyclic model*of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different*physical constants.[3]*Another procreation based on*M-theory*and observations of the*cosmic microwave background*(CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a*multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of*quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists.[6]

I can cite the studies associated with these theories.

But let's see your evidence
Click to expand...
This is science fiction.
 
vegas giants said:
Great. Let's see your evidence.

Are you allergic to evidence?
Click to expand...
I'm allergic to Internet Skepticism. Now, you've dismissed my evidence and arguments -- find someone else to waste time with.
 
Angel said:
I'm allergic to Internet Skepticism. Now, you've dismissed my evidence and arguments -- find someone else to waste time with.
Click to expand...

You are free to ignore me. But I will correct all your posts where you display logic Denialism as I please
 
Strongest audition to date. We may have our lead!
 
zyzygy said:
Irony meters explode!
Click to expand...
Wow! Your audition post has made quite an impression! A callback seems in the cards.
By the way, word on the street is that the latest models of your irony meters are equipped with goblin-detectors. Is this true? Quag is interested in acquiring one of your devices.
 
Angel said:
Wow! Your audition post has made quite an impression! A callback seems in the cards.
By the way, word on the street is that the latest models of your irony meters are equipped with goblin-detectors. Is this true? Quag is interested in acquiring one of your devices.
Click to expand...

Flippitty bippitty
 
Angel said:
And a Bibbidi Bobbity Boo to you!
Click to expand...

Let's take them one at a time

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries,*Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island. He suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent.[50]*Gaunilo's criticism does not explicitly demonstrate a flaw in Anselm's argument; rather, it argues that if Anselm's argument is sound, so are many other arguments of the same*logical form, which cannot be accepted.[51]*He offered a further criticism of Anselm's ontological argument, suggesting that the notion of God cannot be conceived, as Anselm had asserted. He argued that many*theists*would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended. Therefore, if humans cannot fully conceive of God, the ontological argument cannot work.[52]

Anselm responded to Gaunilo's criticism by arguing that the argument applied only to concepts with*necessary existence. He suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Furthermore, a contingent object, such as an island, could always be improved and thus could never reach a state of perfection. For that reason, Anselm dismissed any argument that did not relate to a being with necessary existence.[50]

Other parodies have been presented, including the devil*corollary, the no devil corollary and the extreme no devil corollary. The devil corollary proposes that a being than which nothing worse can be conceived exists in the understanding (sometimes the term lesser is used in place of worse). Using Anselm's logical form, the parody argues that if it exists in the understanding, a worse being would be one that exists in reality; thus, such a being exists. The no devil corollary is similar, but argues that a worse being would be one that does not exist in reality, so does not exist. The extreme no devil corollary advances on this, proposing that a worse being would be that which does not exist in the understanding, so such a being exists neither in reality nor in the understanding.*Timothy Chambers*argued that the devil corollary is more powerful than Gaunilo's challenge because it withstands the challenges that may defeat Gaunilo's parody. He also claimed that the no devil corollary is a strong challenge, as it "underwrites" the no devil corollary, which "threatens Anselm's argument at its very foundations".[53]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom