It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
96
97
98
99
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: When it boils down to "Tides go in, tides go out, you can't explain it" yes I will dismiss it.
avatar
Soyeong: If you blindly dismiss everything you don't agree with without bothering to understand it, then it all looks like that.
It's not blind to dismiss things that do not involve evidence.


Blind would be accepting things without evidence, such as: Religion.
Post edited February 05, 2014 by pimpmonkey2382
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: A logical fallacy is called a logically fallacy because it involves making an error in logic. If someone simply states their opinion, they could have any number of logical or illogical reasons for forming that opinion, but they are not making an error in logic just for stating their opinion. If he had said Dawkins and that group are wrong because they are stupid, then the formation of his opinion would have involved making an error in logic, and thus he would have committed a logical fallacy.
I know what it is, I was asking why you bring it up, I did not say he committed one.

avatar
Soyeong: For instance, pimpmonkey2382 just said, "William lane craig is the master of the god of the gaps fallacies" without giving any reasons to explain why he has that opinion. Perhaps he has a logical reason for forming that opinion or perhaps not, but he has not committed a logical fallacy until he has made an illogical argument.
Nobody needed this explanation, but thanks anyway...

avatar
Soyeong: The expert opinion of a professional philosopher should give you pause, especially when he is critiquing his own side. You don't have to believe in God to recognize that the logic Dawkins used was sloppy. I've called other Christians out for using sloppy logic as well.
Yeah you don;t have to believe in god, but you do have to believe that philosopher of yours until he gives specifics for Dawkins (and Hitchens and so on) sloppy logic.

avatar
Soyeong: "As the cause of space and time, this cause must an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The only two things that fit that description are abstract objects, like numbers, or an intelligent mind. Abstract objects can't cause anything, therefore this cause is a personal, transcendent mind.
So you claim to be the one calling out sloppy logic?

avatar
Soyeong: How else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then cause could never exist without its effect. If the cause were permanently present, then the effect would be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a person agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any antecedent determining conditions. Thus, is is not just the transcendent cause of the universe, but also its personal creator." - William Lane Craig
This old Thomas Aquinas BS is from the dark ages, ok? It doesn't convince anyone today. Even back then I doubt this BS would have flown without the almighty church pressure. Still you could say back then they didn't know shit about shit, so it sounded kinda smart. But today you really don;t have that excuse. There are so many assumptions and logical jumps in this small passage, that I don't understand why you find this stuff worthy of sharing.
Post edited February 05, 2014 by jamotide
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: No, it's logical one doesn't make the other true by default. He could say "I'm god in the flesh" doesn't make it automatically true.
You said "proving their god actually said these things," (emphasis mine).
Anyone can say "I am God made flesh" - doesn't make them our God. Our God is the creator of all things. Ergo, if we can prove that our God said those things, if simultaneously proves He exists.

Now stop dodging the question and give a straightforward reply to my previous simple points.
avatar
jamotide: Fine, I don't mind. I am sure you can find fun stuff in all versions.
such as?

avatar
jamotide: What does that have to do with what he said?
merely doing what he tries to do - jumping on a point he made and showing it to be illogical. Since he refuses to take part in an actual debate (one where he must respond to points made and back up his assertions with the 'evidence' he so desires), I thought it an appropriate response.

avatar
Soyeong: I have watched a number of his debates, which is why I disagree with you. There is a big difference between saying we don't know what caused it, therefore it must have been God, and using arguments that if work show that God logically necessarily exists. You are welcome to try to attack the premises or the form of Craig's arguments, but to say he used the God of the Gaps fallacy is simply incorrect.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: All of his arguments always boil down to "You can't explain it...so god!"

Lets not forget his constant condescending tone either.
You keep making assertions without proof. Also, his 'tone' may make you dislike him, but that's not enough to call down his logic - that's closer to an ad hominem attack.
Can you give a clear example of something you find illogical in his main argument and give a counter-argument?
Post edited February 05, 2014 by TrollumThinks
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
SweatyGremlins: I'm not a cosmologist but they have started to look at 'nothing' in space and found that it is actually pretty active. Something ridiculous like 90% of our body's mass comes from the empty bits inside of protons. The nothing before the Big Bang was supposedly quite active, and at a quantum level you can get something from nothing.
avatar
Soyeong: Outer space is not nothing, the empty bits inside of protons are not nothing, and quantum vacuums are not nothing.

This videos explains it way better than I could hope to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo (Beware, the video is full of religious sniping so try not to be offended. The information is good but unfortunately the speaker will alienate most religious people.)
avatar
Soyeong: I will read Richard Dawkins if I am interested in learning about biology, but he is no expert when it comes to philosophy or religion, so it is better to first look into the experts in those fields.

"Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group."

- Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy, and Director of the Program in the History and Philosophy of Science, Department of Philosophy, Florida State University

Here's an interview with him on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaQgWl-HtYA
That's the thing. There is no such thing as nothing if these people are correct.

The video I linked you is not of Richard Dawkins, he only introduces the speaker who is Lawrence Krauss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

Here is the video again in case you want to watch it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Skip to 2:20 to avoid Dawkins.
Post edited February 05, 2014 by SweatyGremlins
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
SweatyGremlins: That's the thing. There is no such thing as nothing if these people are correct.
When philosophers say that from nothing, nothing comes, they are not talking about something that empty or relatively empty, but that nothing comes from non-being.

Here's what William Lane Craig has to say:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-universe-from-nothing

The video I linked you is not of Richard Dawkins, he only introduces the speaker who is Lawrence Krauss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss

Here is the video again in case you want to watch it now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Skip to 2:20 to avoid Dawkins.
I saw Dawkins speaking and mistakenly assumed he was giving the lecture. I have since watched the video, thanks for sharing it. It's not that I'm avoiding listening to Dawkins, but that I've already heard what he has to say on the subject and I'm not impressed.
Post edited February 05, 2014 by Soyeong
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: No, it's logical one doesn't make the other true by default. He could say "I'm god in the flesh" doesn't make it automatically true.
avatar
TrollumThinks: You said "proving their god actually said these things," (emphasis mine).
Anyone can say "I am God made flesh" - doesn't make them our God. Our God is the creator of all things. Ergo, if we can prove that our God said those things, if simultaneously proves He exists.

Now stop dodging the question and give a straightforward reply to my previous simple points.
avatar
jamotide: Fine, I don't mind. I am sure you can find fun stuff in all versions.
avatar
TrollumThinks: such as?

avatar
jamotide: What does that have to do with what he said?
avatar
TrollumThinks: merely doing what he tries to do - jumping on a point he made and showing it to be illogical. Since he refuses to take part in an actual debate (one where he must respond to points made and back up his assertions with the 'evidence' he so desires), I thought it an appropriate response.

avatar
pimpmonkey2382: All of his arguments always boil down to "You can't explain it...so god!"

Lets not forget his constant condescending tone either.
avatar
TrollumThinks: You keep making assertions without proof. Also, his 'tone' may make you dislike him, but that's not enough to call down his logic - that's closer to an ad hominem attack.
Can you give a clear example of something you find illogical in his main argument and give a counter-argument?
Yes I can, you cannot go from "We don't know" to "Since we don't know....god!" that is illogical.


The lack of knowledge in something doesn't make for evidence for god.
Post edited February 05, 2014 by pimpmonkey2382
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Yes I can, you cannot go from "We don't know" to "Since we don't know....god!" that is illogical.

The lack of knowledge in something doesn't make for evidence for god.
Of course you can't actually show where he has said that. You don't know where, but since you don't know...your fanciful imagination tells you what he said must boil down to him saying that. Now that's what I call illogical.
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: Yes I can, you cannot go from "We don't know" to "Since we don't know....god!" that is illogical.

The lack of knowledge in something doesn't make for evidence for god.
avatar
Soyeong: Of course you can't actually show where he has said that. You don't know where, but since you don't know...your fanciful imagination tells you what he said must boil down to him saying that. Now that's what I call illogical.
That's the basis of all of his debates, except for the ones where he goes "We get objective morality from religion" which is bullshit considering all morality is relative anyway. I'm not going to go through a million WLC debates just to point it out to you.
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: Of course you can't actually show where he has said that. You don't know where, but since you don't know...your fanciful imagination tells you what he said must boil down to him saying that. Now that's what I call illogical.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: That's the basis of all of his debates, except for the ones where he goes "We get objective morality from religion" which is bullshit considering all morality is relative anyway. I'm not going to go through a million WLC debates just to point it out to you.
You don't have to go through a million WLC debates, just quote him once. The problem with saying that morality is relative is that it allows for scenario where there is a society that sees raping and torturing babies as being virtuous. And if there were such a society, then we would have no grounds by which to judge our society as being morally superior, it would just be something we didn't prefer.
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: That's the basis of all of his debates, except for the ones where he goes "We get objective morality from religion" which is bullshit considering all morality is relative anyway. I'm not going to go through a million WLC debates just to point it out to you.
avatar
Soyeong: You don't have to go through a million WLC debates, just quote him once. The problem with saying that morality is relative is that it allows for scenario where there is a society that sees raping and torturing babies as being virtuous. And if there were such a society, then we would have no grounds by which to judge our society as being morally superior, it would just be something we didn't prefer.
It is relative, only difference between that and how you get your morality is I don't do it for some sort of reward after death. Nor do I have to look in a book to find something that agrees with my morality to then confirm it.
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: You don't have to go through a million WLC debates, just quote him once. The problem with saying that morality is relative is that it allows for scenario where there is a society that sees raping and torturing babies as being virtuous. And if there were such a society, then we would have no grounds by which to judge our society as being morally superior, it would just be something we didn't prefer.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: It is relative, only difference between that and how you get your morality is I don't do it for some sort of reward after death. Nor do I have to look in a book to find something that agrees with my morality to then confirm it.
Neither do I, but insisting that it is relative doesn't address the problem I brought up.
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: It is relative, only difference between that and how you get your morality is I don't do it for some sort of reward after death. Nor do I have to look in a book to find something that agrees with my morality to then confirm it.
avatar
Soyeong: Neither do I, but insisting that it is relative doesn't address the problem I brought up.
I'm sure you do expect some sort of reward in the end, which is beside the point. Objective morality can also bring about the same things. No matter what whatever morality you have is your opinion, just as mine is my opinion. Only thing the religion does is confirm your opinions somehow. And I'll let hitchens explain it better than I can.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HG0yH6Jtp0
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: If you blindly dismiss everything you don't agree with without bothering to understand it, then it all looks like that.
The pot and the kettle. You aren't doing anything differently from him, but you're using more words to do it. :)
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: When philosophers say that from nothing, nothing comes, they are not talking about something that empty or relatively empty, but that nothing comes from non-being.
I'm listening to the first link in that website you linked on William Lane. It seems he is arguing over the definition of nothing, stating that Krauss' definition is somewhat dishonest. Again I'm not a cosmologist or philosopher but the idea that there is 'nothing before the Big Bang' is changing to 'there is no such thing as nothing.' It's not really dishonest if our concept of nothing is flawed or does not apply to nature.

I'm not sure that philosophy can really apply to science anyway. Science just makes observations that behave as they do regardless of what we think.

William Lane makes a point I feel is dishonest though. He claims the multiverse theory is a metaphysical 'cop-out.' However, it's just a prediction used to make sense of the mathematical probability for a universe tuned the way ours is.

avatar
Soyeong: It's not that I'm avoiding listening to Dawkins, but that I've already heard what he has to say on the subject and I'm not impressed.
I didn't mean to imply that, I personally like his talks on biology but the whole religious debate I don't find very interesting since it never gets anywhere. Personally I don't really see why there is a movement to validate religion as rational. If you believe in God it just comes down to faith, regardless of what we discover (even if there is infinity before the Big Bang) God would exist outside of it all anyway. I can understand why people like Dawkins and Krauss keep trying to educate though. There's an almost schizophrenic foundation within the major religions that it's hard not to be frightened of it.
Posted February 05, 2014
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I'm sure you do expect some sort of reward in the end, which is beside the point. Objective morality can also bring about the same things. No matter what whatever morality you have is your opinion, just as mine is my opinion. Only thing the religion does is confirm your opinions somehow. And I'll let hitchens explain it better than I can.
Morality is not something something is that is done for a reward, but is something that ought to be done for its own sake. Not everyone behaves morally, but we all appeal to a moral standard that can be known apart from religion. I'll let C. S. Lewis explain it better than I can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdHV_cT-C00
Pages:
1
25
50
75
96
97
98
99
100
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)