God? What do you think:

[HAL9000]

You make up qualities of an entity you say can't exist then claim you can't find him because of these made up qualities. In every post you still show you are close-minded. You can't find God because you don't know what you are looking for.

I don't make up these qualities they are necessary qualities for an existent omnipotent omnipresent being. In order for a being to be omnipresent they cannot be constrained by time, nor can they be constrained by physics or matter. There is nothing close minded about that, I claim this being can't exist for a multitude of REASONS you claim he does without ever offering a reason or answering direct questions, instead you simply respond with things like

"You say you don't make up qualities but you do, god exists but you can't find him because you are looking in the wrong place, one must look before one can find, finding needs looking and looking needs a basis to look"

Your not fucking Yoda, explain what you mean.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I never said there were perfect logical proofs, I said they have flaws, but something like the Ontological Proof is excellent if it weren't for a slightly flawed premise. I'm not delusional I'm just interested in philosophy, which requires listening to all sides and making up your own mind, I've made mine up, i'm an atheist until such time as I hear that perfect logical proof I doubt it exists but it's worth asking, I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you aren't prepared to reason then are as delusional as a theist.

Way to change the subject zippy.

Go ahead, why don't you share some of these logical proofs that you believe are only "slightly flawed" so that we can all rip you to shreds over the delusions that you have that allow you to read them with anything other than derisive laughter. Put up or shut up.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The reason is because coming up with something that must nessecrily exist and explaining why something is that thing is impressive.

That would be impressive if someone actually came up with something that must necessarily exist, but they didn't. They just made something up and used flowery words to appear impressive to people like you.

And you bought it.

 

[HAL9000]

That would be impressive if someone actually came up with something that must necessarily exist, but they didn't. They just made something up and used flowery words to appear impressive to people like you.

And you bought it.

They did, assuming you accept the premise. As i've said over and over and over and over...

 

[HAL9000]

Way to change the subject zippy.

Go ahead, why don't you share some of these logical proofs that you believe are only "slightly flawed" so that we can all rip you to shreds over the delusions that you have that allow you to read them with anything other than derisive laughter. Put up or shut up.

Well as you put it like that! I'd be happy to. :hmm: :|

If you want to study philosophy, study it, don't expect me to explain all philosophical theory on a given subject to you over the internet.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You can't find God because you don't know what you are looking for.

You don't know what to look for, either, so you are every bit as guilty of what you accuse him.

 

[HAL9000]

You don't know what to look for, either, so you are every bit as guilty of what you accuse him.

I'm hoping one day he will explain what he means by these vague bits of nonsense

 

[HumblePie]

I agree, which is why the ontological argument is flawed. Aside from it's lone flaw it is an elegant argument.

please note, I'm not arguing it is correct. I'm arguing it is flawed. But it demonstrates how a logical proof could be constructed, it it were based on a valid premise.

Umm.... then that is not logical at all. Arguing for the premise of arguing to look logical is pointless. If there is no logical premise there can be no logical argument really.

 

[HAL9000]

Umm.... then that is not logical at all. Arguing for the premise of arguing to look logical is pointless. If there is no logical premise there can be no logical argument really.

Well that's not the case at all, as some premises are just definitions, and definitions are not logical. Just like the definition of the word "biscuit" which is different in the UK than it is in the US, there's no logic to that, just years of divergence from the original meaning.

The ontological argument's premise is also a definition, which to some make perfect sense, to others we find flaws.

We can't have any kind of argument without first agreeing on the definition of the words used, and proponents of the Ontological argument agree on the definition of god, there are however as many definitions of god as there are religions or philosophers.

 

[Juddog]

I'm hoping one day he will explain what he means by these vague bits of nonsense

It's a classic ploy - state that the opposing argument doesn't know what you are talking about, then just leave it at that without explaining why they don't know what you are talking about.

Only in this case, we have a massive following that has existed for 2000 years to draw upon, thus negating Malak's argument.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

They did, assuming you accept the premise. As i've said over and over and over and over...

1.) You are a simpleton for being so easily impressed.
2.) You are more the simpleton for not gathering that this was my point.

Congrats, moron. :thumbsup:

 

[SlitheryDee]

editing

 

[HAL9000]

1.) You are a simpleton for being so easily impressed.
2.) You are more the simpleton for not gathering that this was my point.

Congrats, moron. :thumbsup:

Now I remember why you were on my ignore list, you're incapable of being civil, Quoted, Reported, Ignored.

 

[HAL9000]

It's a classic ploy - state that the opposing argument doesn't know what you are talking about, then just leave it at that without explaining why they don't know what you are talking about.

Only in this case, we have a massive following that has existed for 2000 years to draw upon, thus negating Malak's argument.

It's a good point, But I maintain there must be intelligent theists out there, people capable of expressing why they believe what they do, rather than searching for god, I'm searching for that.

 

[zinfamous]

Well that is different,

I met him. His name is Steve, Steve Jobs.

Steve Jobs is not fat. he's barely 110lb by the look of him these days.

Plus, i wouldn't call that a beard.

 

[HAL9000]

Steve Jobs is not fat. he's barely 110lb by the look of him these days.

Plus, i wouldn't call that a beard.

That's what he want's you to think, he's wearing an iSuit.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's a good point, But I maintain there must be intelligent theists out there, people capable of expressing why they believe what they do, rather than searching for god, I'm searching for that.

Yeah, I made the same mistake a couple days ago while browsing through a book store and leafed through a copy of "The Reason for God".

I figured 'hey, I'm a strong atheist, what am I afraid of? Maybe in the last 20 years there have been some compelling arguments for god put forward.'

The book claimed to address a lot of the contemporary skepticism including scientific arguments. That alone should have raised a red flag, but I proceeded to waste two hours reading some of the most bombastic pig vomit I've ever seen. To make it worse, the author uses awkward sentence structures and obtuse philisophical jargon to hide the idiocy of his arguments.

 

[HAL9000]

Yeah, I made the same mistake a couple days ago while browsing through a book store and leafed through a copy of "The Reason for God".

I figured 'hey, I'm a strong atheist, what am I afraid of? Maybe in the last 20 years there have been some compelling arguments for god put forward.'

The book claimed to address a lot of the contemporary skepticism including scientific arguments. That alone should have raised a red flag, but I proceeded to waste two hours reading some of the most bombastic pig vomit I've ever seen. To make it worse, the author uses awkward sentence structures and obtuse philisophical jargon to hide the idiocy of his arguments.

That is unfortunate, true philosophy is a fascinating thing, and regardless of peoples belief system everyone should be able to understand it, I would be open to an existent god, but it would require a huge change in the definition of god. This is why I continue to ask theists, Malak pretends to know what he's talking about but unfortunately it appears under his words is nothing.

I'd probably have fallen for reading that book as well.

 

[Nik]

You make up qualities of an entity you say can't exist then claim you can't find him because of these made up qualities. In every post you still show you are close-minded. You can't find God because you don't know what you are looking for.

You're not that stupid, Malak. That's not what he was doing and you know it.

Your god created the universe, eh?

I'll believe in him when he comes down out of heaven, shakes my hand, and has a conversation with me.

Until then, you're imagining things. It's not your fault, though! Regions of the brain develop through evolution! You still have the "god-need" portion of your brain surging to live, trying to dominate for survival. The world is quickly evolving that portion of the brain out so we don't need to make up silly fairy tales anymore. It's glorious.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Well as you put it like that! I'd be happy to. :hmm: :|

If you want to study philosophy, study it, don't expect me to explain all philosophical theory on a given subject to you over the internet.

In other words you got called out and will run away instead. ROFLMAO!! No wonder you're so easily swayed into believing that the nonsensical rantings of lunatics passes as a "logical proof". What a sad little boy you are, so utterly unprepared for someone asking you for examples of the logic that you clearly just pulled out of your own ass that the best you can do is scream and retreat. You are the perfect poster child for the "logical proofs" offered by religion, completely unwilling and unable to hold up to scrutiny. ROFL!!

 

[HAL9000]

In other words you got called out and will run away instead. ROFLMAO!! No wonder you're so easily swayed into believing that the nonsensical rantings of lunatics passes as a "logical proof". What a sad little boy you are, so utterly unprepared for someone asking you for examples of the logic that you clearly just pulled out of your own ass that the best you can do is scream and retreat. You are the perfect poster child for the "logical proofs" offered by religion, completely unwilling and unable to hold up to scrutiny. ROFL!!

Wow you think that Philosophy is non-sensical ramblings of lunatics, you... don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to talk about this subject with me. Sorry.

I gave you an example. I'm done with you now, when I try and talk I do it like an adult with "ROFLMAO's" and without calling people names. If you want to learn, read up and get back to me. The way you are talking to me now resembles a small petulant child. Until you grow up, I have nothing to say to you. Logical proofs with small flaws exist, whether you like it or not, I gave you an example already.

I don't give a fucking shit what you think of me, so take your petty little insults and shove them your stupid arse. I'm not here to explain philosophy to you if you aren't capable of understanding the entire subject then that is your problem. I have a degree in it. I'm not a teacher I'm a student. Go learn.

 

[Minjin]

A faulty premise is not a small flaw, especially if it is your only major premise. It is like missing the foundation and then trying to build a house. The rest is pointless.

 

[HAL9000]

A faulty premise is not a small flaw, especially if it is your only major premise. It is like missing the foundation and then trying to build a house. The rest is pointless.

The point though is that the premise I'm talking about is not so much faulty as open to argument.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I also don't need to check reality to know that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being that allows unnecessary evil doesn't exist.

If we are to exist as the people we are, then the evil of the world must also exist. This makes all evil necessary for us to exist as who we are. Sometimes I think I'd rather not be who I am and not have people live such horrible things... But without them who I am doesn't exist.

an invisible man in the sky exists.

Oddly enough, no one is arguing such.

1.) God is a self-referenced as being "what is"
2.) "what is" does exist.
C.) Therefore God exists.

The nature of such a God, OTOH and his super powers (if they do or do not include sentience, nudity and the ability to microwave a hot-pocket so hot even he himself can not eat it) are up for discussion. Logically I'm open to such a God being a spegeti monster, a non-sentient natural occurrence labeled 'god' by some jews or simply a total ass hole that created us in-order to troll us.

Though my experiences in life tell me otherwise.

There's no evidence whatsoever, anywhere, that Jesus was anything other than a man.no supporting evidence. At all.

Other than those that witnessed his resurrection and where willing to be murdered for their lie; Does this absolutely prove that these guys where telling the truth? No, not at all. Does it offer SOME supporting evidence, some small shred of any supporting evidence at all. Well yes, yes it does.

Being as how you opted to lose the hell out of the previous conversation by dropping into mindless insults instead of reasoned discourse I doubt I'll get much better from you here.

They just made something up and used flowery words to appear impressive to people like you.

that was my take on the ontological argument for the existence of God as well; First mover-spaghetti monster is much more defensible.

I'm hoping one day he will explain what he means by these vague bits of nonsense

He means that if you loved God you would know his voice; but you are not his people and therefore you do not know the Master's voice. It's like arguing with a Vulcan that sex is fun "it isn't logical", no shit, but it's a great way to spend 5min once every few months.

The point though is that the premise I'm talking about is not so much faulty as open to argument.

But an omni-everything that ALSO has noodly appendages is, in my reckoning EVEN GREATER than the God of Abraham and Isac.

 

[HeXen]

lol, love it. Thread starts out simple enough "this is an experiment" with a poll, a few simple responses at first and 15 pages later..well i think the experiment has an obvious conclusion regardless of original intent.