Arguments about God

[MaxVel]

Conversely, the atheist desire to depersonalize the foundations of reality are nothing more than the id's desire to kill the father.

Woot! Metacrock is in the house!


Welcome to TWeb!

[Metacrock]

Woot! Metacrock is in the house!


Welcome to TWeb!

hey Maxvel. great to see you again my friend. how long has it been? thanks for the welcome buddy.

Hope you been well.

[CarpeDeum]

Conversely, the atheist desire to depersonalize the foundations of reality are nothing more than the id's desire to kill the father.

The force is strong with this one. A powerful sith he will become.

[ENeGMA]

One interesting argument that I have heard for atheism is that it can be demonstrated that many people throughout history created gods to explain natural phenomena so gods probably do not exist. For example, Germanic people once thought that Thor made lightning with his hammer, Mjollnir. Rarely, you may come across a person who still believes this, but almost everyone now accepts the scientific fact that lightning is an atmospheric electrical discharge. Similarly, we now know that earthquakes are not caused by Poseidon (AKA Neptune) stamping his foot or hitting the ground with his trident, but by the collision of tectonic plates.

So the conclusion of this argument is that all gods were simply created to explain natural phenomena that people did not understand. The more science explains things, the less people tend to attribute to a personal deity. I don't believe this argument proves the non existence of personal gods.

No, but it does suggest it.

I think it is an inductive argument.

It is.

But it is one of the best arguments I have heard that humans created personal gods.

I don't think you need much of an argument to convince of that fact: even supposing that one religion shows us the correct personal God, that alone demosntrates that the vast majority of personal Gods have been created as human ficitons.

This argument is not really a good argument against the existence of non-personal Gods/supernatural forces, like the Tao, though

I think it works about as well in this case.

Why couldn't people have made those up too?

[Metacrock]

The force is strong with this one. A powerful sith he will become.

cute. but you are not ready for the Catskills.

[Joveia]

hu? sorry. I don't follow. it sounds like you are saying anything people believe is the best they can do. So if people believe a bad argument that disproves any possibility of their position because what they believe is the best that can be done?

surely that's not what you are saying???

I think I phrased that badly. I mean that we tend to consider our interpretation of an idea to be correct and universally the right interpretation of an idea. So for example, to skeptics who disagree with the OA, it comes across to them as though everyone believes in a bad ontological argument, although a lot of other people would equally think that everyone who believes in the OA believes in something that can work very well.

Doug, leaving aside the whole 'existence of God' question, you do believe that at the most basic level, reality is basically material, composed of inanimate matter, right? I'd imagine that all atheists would think that is probably the case, if they studied the issue. That seems like something really important to atheism. But it can't be said to be automatically the right position... wouldn't you have to say?

[Metacrock]

Oh, that's easy. All of the supposedly fulfilled messianic prophecies are junk. Every single one of them was either mistranslated, weren't a prophecy in the first place, taken out of context, or completely made up. I can provide links with the proofs if you're interested.

Wrong.

http://www.doxa.ws/Menues/DoxaMessiah_menu2.html

Edersheim proves from the Talmud that they speak of Jesus


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Fulfill.html

[Griggsy]

Theists, God is crying! Might some of you help him? He is crying, because as He ,being disembodied, he has no brain, and so ,no mind and so, He can neither think nor act.
Some atheists thought that had He body, one could find it traversing space ; so thought the Soviet kosmonauts. Two theologians claim that indeed He has a body- Existence.
An argument that goes with the one from angst is the one from happines that one is happier in his bosom. Nay, a survey indicates that both confirmed atheists and theists are happier than others.
A theistic argument similar to the naturalist one from pareidolia is the one from beauty, where one exclaims, how can one account for tr all the beauty around us? Dr.Clinton Richard Dawkins , my friend,in his books describes now evolution accounts for much of the beauty and- so, as the presumption of naturalism declares, all natural causes account for that beauty and- ugliness.
The argument from angst appears in the form there are no atheists in fox holes. That contradicts the evidence that there certainly are! And why wouldn't such a situation make for more atheists?s, This boomerangs on those theists who use it in that it reflects angst on their part in that they feel that under pressure atheists reveal that they just want to do whatever they won't without His inlluence. Nay, we've solid arguments against Him and we don't need Him period. Yes, the problem of evil -see the problem of Heaven thread-is emotional for but on a factual basis.
[U[/U] How do you proclaim His non-existence or existence? Or are you undecided or state that no one can declare herself one or the other? CarpeDeum, amen and indeed! Those are real causes rather than that what preachers bleat!
Thanks, everybody. skeptic griggsy

[Griggsy]

Theists argue not only without Him do we fare badly with no evidence, they allege that our rights have to come from Him in order to be inalienable or else from the state and thus revocable. No! The naturalist argument for rights , in line with the UN , is that our level of consciousness makes for our rights, reflecting Morgan's Canon.
And in line with that canon, we ought to support The Great Ape Project to grant the other great apes more protections as Spain and New Zealand now do. This reflects our covenant morality for humanity. Now to set off certain theists, most of us theists then care more for the "rights" of those other apes rather than of the unborn!
Being disembodied, God then has no brain, and thus no mind and thus cannot act or think! Theists should consider the implications of their assertions about Him as they can affirm ignosticism! We find no evidence for disembodied beings whatsoever. That is just another theological it must be.
Why do you declare no god or affirm His existence or are undecided about Him or think that no one can show one way or the other anything about Him? My posts and threads reveal that He cannot exist! No more than a married bachelor.

[Griggsy]

That God is disembodied and thus has no brain and thus no mind and thus can neither act nor think, this fact affirms ignosticism [ See the two threads thereof, please.].
We find no evidence of souls. Not only psychology refutes that notion but also physics. It and He thus cannot exist.
As Existence is all, there perforce can be no transcendent God. As, the infinite regress argument notes,cause, event and time presuppose previous causes, events and time.
W.L.C. begs the question of a start to Existence as even Aquinas knew, it is day by day eternally. His farragoes of sophistry cannot establish the Kalam as nothing more than begged question.He misuse science to argue for the finity of Existence whilst science illustrates no real beginning, just a transformation from the quantum fluctuations.
Sophistry cannot instantiate deity!
Again, the presumption of naturalism holds! See that thread,please.
The atelic or teleonomic argument reflects the fact that science finds no intent - teleonomy- behind Nature, so that to claim God as the creator or designer contradicts that fact, and thus as the Ockham notes, He is out of work!
Thus not only does this argument refute the begged question of teleological arguments but of others also.See the two category mistake and contradictions in an agnostic threads, please.
We discern this in accounts of miracles: as there is no intent, then any such manifestations can only be natural. See the thread on Hume and miracles,please.
As Jewry survives due to their own and others' efforts, then there is no divine intent for that, keel hauling the historical argument.
Theology reflects animism boiled down to one entity but still the same superstition. The Azande know quite well that natural causes operate but still see spirits as behind them, so that if a tile falls and hurts someone, then a spirit caused that. So, no difference exists betwixts animism and theism; to argue otherwise special pleads.[/B]
We rationalists plead for fallibility and probability as did the first ignostic, Carneades.
Goodwill and blessings to all!

[Griggsy]

[COLOR="Green" Alvin Plantinga finds hat the argument from physical mind has no force, ah, but he uses the argument from ignorance to allege that and begs the question of His mind and another it must be or it may be without any evidence.
This is what one expects from theologians. We only know of embodied minds. We cannot guest otherwise.
Also the law of causality operates in order for the putative God to act , and thus the presumption of naturalism hold. See that thread!
Theologians are the ones who don't fathom the implications of theology! They ever commit logicde in their arguments, and then bleat that we naturalists are fundamentalist atheists, so they can assuage themselves when we see through their sophistry!
These two arguments alone illumine how God answers for naught what supernaturalists claim!
And the atelic in showing no intent keel hauls most of their arguments as it shows no intent to create, design, do miracles or act in history to save Jewry!
The argument from pareidolia illustrates how the supernaturalists read onto teleonomy and patterns teleology and designs.
Supernaturalists - that bane![/I][/COLOR]

[Zombie]

Why do you declare no god or affirm His existence or are undecided about Him or think that no one can show one way or the other anything about Him? My posts and threads reveal that He cannot exist! No more than a married bachelor.

would you say god exists as mythos, like art or inspiration?

[Tanakh Keeper]

Wrong.

http://www.doxa.ws/Menues/DoxaMessiah_menu2.html

Edersheim proves from the Talmud that they speak of Jesus


http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Fulfill.html

So your "proof" is to use Christian sites to interpret Talmud. With that same reasoning, I can use Islamic sites to prove the falsity of your bible.

As far as Edersheim, you are referring to Alfred Edersheim. He was an Austrian Jew born in 1825. He studied at the gymnasium and University of Austria (meaning he did not study at a Jewish Yeshiva but rather had a secular education, ergo he was not well versed if at all educated in Judaism). When he was old enough to leave home, he worked on a bridge. A couple of chaplains befriended him, and he became a Christian. They took him back to their native country of Scotland. He began attending the New College in Scotland in 1843 (when he was 18). This is a Chrstian missionary school. He became a minister at 21. The mere fact that one is born a Jew does not make one a Jewish scholar! Moreover, even Jewish young men that have studied Torah & Talumd in its original language from birth are not qualified with the label of "scholar", let alone an apparently assimilated Jewish young man such as Edersheim.

[SatanTheAlien]

Nothing but prayer removed obsession to drink alcohol for me, for example. Tried therapy, no good.



.

You didn't try the right therapy. One of the right therapies for you was the treatment of self via prayer, which is a form of therapy. Meditation is another, by which I've concured my emotions. I did that all my my self. I didn't pray to anyone. I didn't see a therapist. I've overcome my addictions and so much more, all by my self, by the power of meditation.

Because you didn't try all forms of therapy, you don't know if one of them would have also worked as well as praying, or better than praying. So your experience with prayer really is meaningless when it comes to the exitence of God. Wouldn't you agree?

[headheart]

Because you didn't try all forms of therapy, you don't know if one of them would have also worked as well as praying, or better than praying. So your experience with prayer really is meaningless when it comes to the exitence of God. Wouldn't you agree?

nb,


You are a nOOb to this forum, and I would suggest that you ease up on the gasoline, greased lighting flashes and brimstone before you get yourself banned.

John Goddard and I may not see eye to eye when it comes to matters of faith, but when we trade scars, our injuries are the same.
Seeing as you are so quick to prescribe a remedy to another persons personal nightmare, perhaps you might like to state you credentials.

Prayer satan(un)holydevil involves the whole of your being, and seeing as you have not yet responded to my question about that, I think you have just reached "troll status" and are from now on my ignore list.

Shakes sssssssserpent off in The name.
HH