CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Richard Dawkins logic
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.
**This is not logic. This is making a fool of oneself in a published book.**
Bahahahahahahahahahaha... I laughed at this argument for a while..... An atheistic attempt at destroying the Ontological Argument just reverts into God being able to do the logically impossible, which means the conclusion is the opposite of what Dawkins supposes, which is that God does exist. But if God cannot do the logically impossible, then this logic is messed up entirely.
From the bible. Which has no supporting non biblical sources. ive heard it all a million times. Case for christ, i dont have enough faith to be an atheist, mere christianity, ive read em all. Not interested thanks
Supporting non-supernatural claims. And even then this is still not convincing enough to jump to the conclusion that Jesus is God, nor does it warrant the following non-sequitur of the entire bible being true.
Actually there are non Biblical sources supporting non-supernatural claims. And if you prove Jesus rose from the dead, then you prove that Jesus was who He said He was, which means what He says is true and, thus, the Bible is true.
Have you now? Historians believe that Jesus was real. It is a fact that He was real; whether He was God is the question. Now let us begin the examination.
Have you now? Historians believe that Jesus was real.
Some. not all, over generalization. next fallacy,
It is a fact that He was real
No it isnt. thats just a flat out untruth. next fallacy
whether He was God is the question. Now let us begin the examination.
Did Jesus die under the hand of Pilate?
Are you retarded or something? i said im not interested in hearing this same old ramble for the upteenth time, if you continue then ill just stop replying to you and you can have fun talking to yourself.
I refer you to the YouTube channel: stevelikes2curse. Watch his I Dont Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist series parts 12 and 13 which talk about exactly these things:
12- Did Jesus rise from the dead? and 13- Was Jesus God or just a great moral teacher?
watch them. Those articulate my arguments better than i could
The New Testament Bible alone is proof that there was a Jesus because it was written by numerous authors and all referred in passing about Jesus. The apocryphal gospels are also proof that He was real; the question is not whether he was real or not: it is whether He was God or not.
Are you retarded or something? i said im not interested in hearing this same old ramble for the upteenth time, if you continue then ill just stop replying to you and you can have fun talking to yourself.
That is fine. If you don't want to hear some actually speak truth to you, then so be it.
I refer you to the YouTube channel: stevelikes2curse. Watch his I Dont Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist series parts 12 and 13 which talk about exactly these things:
And I could beat his arguments. They are filled with logical fallacies from a brief watching of the first video you pointed out. So if you want to talk to an actual historian, which is myself because that is what I study along with philosophy, then we can talk.
``There are actually places outside the bible that claim the supernatural aspects of the bible to be true. And if you prove jesus rose from the dead then you prove that jesus was true, which means what he says is true and thus the bible is true.``
Doesn`t this logic sound a lot like the logical fallacy called begging the question?
example: "the bible is true because it says it's true and I know the bible's true because its true!"
It is not begging the question. How have I said in this argument that the Bible is right because the Bible is right? I have said that the Bible is right because Jesus said the Bible was right. That is not a logical fallacy because they are separate to one another. Moreover, it is not begging the question because I said that I have evidences outside of the Bible to support Jesus. Please rehearse yourself with logic before commenting again and being shamed.
Please rehearse yourself with logic before commenting again and being shamed.
you know what, you`re something else Lolzors. I can see what your goal is here. You think that me asking a question is going to lead to shame. Well buddy, I got news for you. THERE ARE NO DUMB QUESTIONS. Thank you for answering and go fuck yourself.
And reason tells me that it is from the past. In the empirical though I can only know that what I have in my hand is x in my hand. Logic has two branches: deductive and inductive arguments. Empirical has to take on both of these to understand the past and predict the future; however, without this reason, no one can know anything about anything except that what one holds in one's hands is x
If you disagree with this logic, then look up the famous a priori and a posteriori debate, which led to synthetic a priori
Because we percieve reality as such and we have absolutely no reason to assume that this is not reality or a different one. likewise we shouldnt give two shits about other realities (if they exist) because we cant percieve, test, or detect them so they dont matter and arent worth our time
Yeah right? i mean im sure youre so much smarter at age 16 with a highschool and bible education than one of the worlds leading biologists. How dare you assert such things.
You post on a debate site youre gonna get disputed. Opinion or not. And an opinion statement would be "in my opinion......" but srom says what he says as statements of fact.
Because he made a foolish claim! Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man and whereas whether he deserves respect or not thats up to opinion but if youre going to make the assertion that youre smarter than him, dont expect to not get that thrown back at you!
No he isnt. A fool would know a fool. Anybody can recognize a fool. It is his opinion to call him a fool. I can call anyone a fool regardless of their achievements but it comes down to opinion.
No he isnt. A fool would know a fool. Anybody can recognize a fool. It is his opinion to call him a fool. I can call anyone a fool regardless of their achievements but it comes down to opinion
And i disputed it because its a stupid one. Someone can hold the opinion that the Earth is flat and mars is a potato, sure they have that right. but i also have the right to call that person out for being a fucktard for thinking that.
Srom made a stupid opinion statement backed by nothing but personal bias and stubbornness. I disputed it with evidence for why my opinion is more correct
On why your opinion is more correct? Because he is a scientist right? I am sure Srom knows more about the Bible than he does. I read his book "The God Delusion". It was fluff.
but i also have the right to call that person out for being a fucktard for thinking that.
And they can say the same to you for thinking its round and is a rock. So what?
On why your opinion is more correct? Because he is a scientist right?
No because I can back it with evidence. He attended a presteigious college for about 12 years studying evolutionary biology among other things, is the author of 4 books and many peer reviewed papers, and is backed by pretty much every other biologist there is. He has credentials that show he is absolutely not a fool, but brilliant.
I am sure Srom knows more about the Bible than he does.
And? Dawkins doesn't make false claims about the bible he can't back up and that isn't his area if expertise. I'm sure he's read it just like Srom and everyone else.
Atheists in general actually test higher on biblical knowledge tests than Christians on average.
I read his book "The God Delusion". It was fluff.
That's your opinion but I'm gonna bank on that you A) didnt actually read it entirely or with an open mind B) didn't get it C) ignored what it said or D) made biased excuses for it. That's just my opinion though. I thought it was quite good.
And they can say the same to you for thinking its round and is a rock. So what?
So what is that their insult is baseless ad hominem and ultimately wrong whereas mine I can at least back up by explaining why I called them that.
No because I can back it with evidence. He attended a presteigious college for about 12 years studying evolutionary biology among other things, is the author of 4 books and many peer reviewed papers, and is backed by pretty much every other biologist there is. He has credentials that show he is absolutely not a fool, but brilliant.
By his book the "The God Delusion" my class didn't see this brilliance but a nice style of word play within his rhetoric. People can be fools at any given moment. He obviously doesn't know how to understand the bible. Biblical knowledge is good. I would expect Atheists to know more. Do you know why? Most Christian just sit there and listen. There are only like five to seven people in a church that have great biblical knowledge and also understands it, which somehow a lot of Atheists don't get. Every time we explain anything it's just ignored so there is no use in trying to explain anything. Most Christians probably have no idea how sin came into this world and many have no need to wonder why.
Dawkins doesn't make false claims about the bible he can't back up and that isn't his area if expertise. I'm sure he's read it just like Srom and everyone else.
There is a difference between knowing, which is what Richard Dawkins does, and understanding, which is what Srom does.
That's your opinion but I'm gonna bank on that you A) didnt actually read it entirely or with an open mind B) didn't get it C) ignored what it said or D) made biased excuses for it. That's just my opinion though. I thought it was quite good.
I read it with an open mind. I bookmarked a few quotes here and there that I agreed with. However in AP Language it isn't hard for us to see through these words that he uses to sway his audience. Some people thought it was good. Some thought it was utterly terrible. Some were just like they didn't really care about it because it left no impact.
So what is that their insult is baseless ad hominem and ultimately wrong
How is his opinion wrong? That's the thing. An opinion can't be correct or wrong, but the facts can. An opinion that doesn't correspond with reality may be wrong though.
To be truly omnipotent he'd have to be every where at every time, the only way to do that would be to be everything. If god is everything, then God is nothing, meaning this is pretty sound. This Richard Dawkins must be a pantheist.
The other religions have it better than Christianity. Their Gods are set with their limitations, and don't take credit for things they have no business being involved in. Making them less questionable.
Good video but that video is off by one dimension, there are 11 dimensions, over 11 things start to break down and become unstable, so if God does exist God would be vibrating though all 11 dimensions, the 11th dimension is the dimension that holds all other dimensions (hyperspace), or (heaven) for you Christians
The reason that doesn't make sense is purely logical. If God was a purely logical being (which I guess it's already been decided he's not) he would have to be everywhere somehow to know everything.
In this existence that we live in, every thing we have ever experienced that receives information, receives it through physical senses, there's never been any magic. Why would their just suddenly be magic?
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
THe only reason why we aquire information in the existence we live in through physical senses is because we are physical. SInce God is spirit (I wish I could tell you how he aquires information but I am not in his state of being so....) he will not aquire information the way we do.
How is that logic unproven? Are you saying only physical beings exist? It is also not fair to do in my terms your turns, it defeats the purpose of debating.
There's no point in continuing when you'll revert to, "well according to the Bible I'm right" when we have proven virtually nothing in the bible with actual facts, so we are debating on two completely different premises. We will never have closure that we can both agree on.
Sorry Quolcimar, I have argued on this site so much that when I am referring to God, whether it be Christian or not, my default is to use the Christian Bible. Not my fault, only because when I am on this site, the automatic default for the person I am arguing against is to use the Christian God so I assumed as much. Nevertheless, my argument is that if non physical beings exist, then they need not physical means to gather information. To argue further, we must agree on whether the God we speak of (hypothetical) is physical or non physical.
You missed my point completely. It's not which bible you're using, it's the fact that any Bible is being used, when there is still no proof of any of it. You are basically assuming the God is formless.
You missed mine completely, I was never talking about which Bible to be used, I was only saying that we need to agree on the qualities of this abstract God. You are basically assuming that because you acquire information through physical means, he does the same. That is like saying because you have arms, worms have arms.
The difference between my assumption and your assumption is the fact that every creature we have met thus far, has acquired information through physical means. No creature hasn't so it's groundless to say that there's a creature who doesn't. That's like assuming there's a planet out there somewhere that's in the shape of a cube, when every planet we've seen so far is in the shape of a sphere.
Logically that follows. We have intelligent beings on this tiny planet, in this tiny solar system in the giant universe. The chances that we are the only intelligent species in the universe is unlikely. Their basis is ground in the fact that we know of an intelligent species already (Us). Religion's idea is ground in no sense. They say that God is formless when we haven't met a formless being yet. They say God can get knowledge in ways other than physical, but we have not met a creature that can do this. Do you see the difference?
Yeah, we know of intelligent beings and we know of cubes as much as spheres. So if the planets copy the shapes we know on Earth, then there must be a cubed shape planet somewhere. To say there is none is unlikely, unless you are going to tell me that there was some being making everything round. You see where I am going with this?
We know of intelligent beings, that exist. So to think more exist is not that much of a stretch. We know that planets take the shape of spheres. So to think that there is one that might take the shape of cube, is a stretch do you get it?
I made an error. A cube planet is not that far of a stretch on the basis that the planet is not made of soil, but instead made of a crystal of sorts. Still, that is a logical explanation of how a cube planet would exists, based on facts we know already, and have experinced in lesser degrees.
Let me ask you something Lolzors93. How can one knoweverything, happening at every time without being everywhere?
If the answer is "they can't" then that validates my statement. If God knows, all, at all times, he must be everywhere. If he is everywhere, then he is described as a pantheist would describe him. And as simple logic dictates, if everyone is anything, then nothing is special about it. For example: If everyone is rich, the term rich can't actually exist, without a separate perspective of poor to compare it to.
Omniscience is different from omnipotence. However, you are looking at it from a merely physical standpoint. God knows that which is not physical, such as our thoughts. Omniscience does not require one to be everywhere because omniscience is also the knowledge of what would happen if something that has happened did not happen, such as JFK not being killed when he did or what if King Kong existed; omniscience knows everything that is an is not, which would mean under your logic that God would literally have to be a manifestation in every reality in every possible series of events. Though that is theoretically possible, it still does not deny that omniscience knows everything that is in our hearts, which is not physical. You are applying the physical to the abstract, which is a logical fallacy. However, outside of the notion of omniscience not requiring omnipresence, the Bible says that God is omnipresent.
However, you are looking at it from a merely physical standpoint.
Since God can't be physical of course not.
God knows that which is not physical, such as our thoughts.
Which means why pray, he already knows your prayers before you make the.
Omniscience does not require one to be everywhere because omniscience is also the knowledge of what would happen if something that has happened did not happen, such as JFK not being killed when he did or what if King Kong existed;
That's laughable how you even justify a being being capable of doing that. For it to do that, based off of logic, it has to be the universe itself.
omniscience knows everything that is an is not, which would mean under your logic that God would literally have to be a manifestation in every reality in every possible series of events.
Which means why pray, he already knows your prayers before you make the.
He does know all things and He has predestined all things. This is true. However, God does ask us to do certain things. He asks us to believe but He is the one who allows us believe. He asks us to pray if we want something but He is the one who allows us to believe. Put it this way: God knows all things and plans all things and works all things for the good of those who love Him and has given each of us unique characteristics and desires so that when we pray for what we want, which God predestined, then He can answer them.
That's laughable how you even justify a being being capable of doing that. For it to do that, based off of logic, it has to be the universe itself.
It does not have to be the universe itself. That is a non sequitur, which is a logical fallacy.
That would be the universe itself.
That is not the universe itself. Math is applied to everything in the physical but math is not everything physical itself. Is a shadow math? Is a rocket launch math? Math is there applying to it but is not it itself. And even if you want to say that the Bible is pantheistic, is there a problem with that?
It does not have to be the universe itself. That is a non sequitur, which is a logical fallacy.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, look at God himself. You're the one claiming he can do this, and not do this at the same time. You're the one claiming that he created man perfect, but the imperfection of man made sin. wtf? What I proposed, and Dawkins proposed was a logical solution to some of the paradoxes your God traffics in.
And even if you want to say that the Bible is pantheistic, is there a problem with that?
I don't think there's a problem with that, but his followers always seem to. Like the idea that God isn't a person living in the clouds, but instead is the entire universe itself, is so much more of a stretch.
You said this: "How can one know everything, happening at every time without being everywhere?" That is a question of omniscient, not omnipotence.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, look at God himself. You're the one claiming he can do this, and not do this at the same time. You're the one claiming that he created man perfect, but the imperfection of man made sin. wtf? What I proposed, and Dawkins proposed was a logical solution to some of the paradoxes your God traffics in.
Who said that God created man perfect in the sense of infallibility? God does not have any paradox. Most of the time the supposed paradoxes are answered one of two ways: (1) God cannot do the logically impossible, which is not in any way contradictory to omnipotence and the Bible, and the paradox, therefore, not a paradox but easily answered, or (2) God can do the logically impossible, which leaves paradoxes non-paradoxical.
I don't think there's a problem with that, but his followers always seem to. Like the idea that God isn't a person living in the clouds, but instead is the entire universe itself, is so much more of a stretch.
It is not the classical Biblical answer but it is not contradictory to the Bible.
The thing is that us Christian always make the mistake in thinking they can answer everything. They cannot. They can only interpret the information they were given.
Exactly my point. And we Atheists and skeptics do the same thing, except we follow the evidence to a more logical conclusion and theists follow it to a faith based conclusion .
It doesnt matter what you accept. logic is what logic is. Basing claims, knowledge, views, beliefs, ect. on evidence that supports them is logical. Basing such things on wishfull thinking that has no evidence to support them is ILlogical. That is something 99% of all people SHOULD and DO agree with.
Again. What is logical to you isnt logical to everybody. You seem to press heavily for logic but you claim that Moses only saved his family. That is not logic. That is just sad. They made a movie about it. It did fairly well for an animated movie.
Logic is logic. There is no my logic and your logic, just logic. A sort of objective logic can be determined through condenses of masses of people. If a claim fails to meet this then it is illogical. But simply because one person thinks something is illogical doesn't make it so. It makes that persons thought process flawed.
You seem to press heavily for logic but you claim that Moses only saved his family. That is not logic. That is just sad. They made a movie about it. It did fairly well for an animated movie.
I was talking about Noah. Sorry I often mix up my fictional characters. And why is it relevant that there's an animated movie?
I was talking about Noah. Sorry I often mix up my fictional characters.
I speak to my church all the time and make that mistake. It's fine. Just don't say "You all remember when Jacob died on the cross for our sins right?". People hate that. Learned that the hard way.
And why is it relevant that there's an animated movie?
When I was under the impression that you thought Moses only saved his family I was implying that there is an entire movie based on the man.
A sort of objective logic can be determined through condenses of masses of people.
Yep. It comes down to understanding though. Some people say God is illogical and some say he is logical. I haven't seen anything that pulled me either way. I just made the choice myself.
Yep. It comes down to understanding though. Some people say God is illogical and some say he is logical. I haven't seen anything that pulled me either way. I just made the choice myself.
I doubt you made any choice. you were probably raised the way you are. And im also sure you havent been exposed to all of the arguments in Atheisms arsenal with an open mind. but thats my opinion
I doubt you made any choice. you were probably raised the way you are.
Nope. I made them go to church. I became my own type of Christian. I am more radical though. I made hand outs for my school and for the public. I also talk to people in public about God. I make my parents read the bible and share it with their co-workers. My parents didn't have a religion. They just never thought about it.
And im also sure you havent been exposed to all of the arguments in Atheisms arsenal with an open mind.
I have seen a lot of them and have been told a lot of them and I ponder about them and go to study them. I wouldn't keep assuming things about my life if I were you.
Please enlighten me on how any form of religion especially Christianity can be logical.
1. You consider it immoral for incest to take place; yet you also state we are born from adam and eve, making us all incest humans. So according to religious logic we're all immorally doing the act of incest.
2. The only evidence of the scripture being correct is the scripture itself; according to this logic i could state my ideals on my belief system on a napkin and say within the napkin it's true. From christian logic it must be true? it says so.
So please just give one christian "idealistic," notion.
(These are not my beliefs, just using christian logic.)
Number 1: Incest was acceptable in the beginning, but when the Earth was populated, it was no longer needed and was bad due to health risks. I am a new Christian, so I will leave 2 to the older Christians.
"You stating the possession of "christian logic." Logic being a process in which you rationalize the belief into words of how it RATIONALLY makes sense."
Also without religion there is no Jesus, you being a christian women should know Christianity created Jesus. But religion will never dictate a god.
You seemed like a brain washed person who has the intentions of a deist.
Are you like 10 mam? The opposition of you belief in which someone expresses is rude? does this mean you find religion standards to be much more above the constitution and the laws that reside? According to you seem to wish for the repeal of amendment 1, My free speech offends you, and my freedom of belief upon my own religious idealistic thought is upsetting, why can't you just have a conversation standing your ground in your beliefs.
The way you are speaking to me is rude. I do not have to tolerate it. Leave me alone. I only have respectful debates. I do not indulge disrespectful people.
Bullshit. I am not violating your right to freedom of speech. I am using mine. Stop playing the victim. It is not a violation of your rights for me to challenge what you say. Freedom of speech unchallenged is not a right, but freedom of speech is.
You consider it immoral for incest to take place; yet you also state we are born from adam and eve, making us all incest humans. So according to religious logic we're all immorally doing the act of incest.
Incest wasn't immoral until the population was big enough. I mean doesn't science have that same problem? Mating with you brother or sister causes health problems so how are we able to have children that are perfectly fine?
The only evidence of the scripture being correct is the scripture itself
There are other works out there that support scripture.
according to this logic i could state my ideals on my belief system on a napkin and say within the napkin it's true. From christian logic it must be true? it says so.
True. If you can fill people with the spirit of whatever you wrote on the napkins and show us it's works then sure.
These are not my beliefs, just using christian logic
Thats not Christian logic. You are not applying full biblical knowledge. Incest wasn't immoral or seen as bad until the population was stable.
Since Dana did 1), I'll get rid of the fallacy of 2). External sources/writers are used to verify the existence of Biblical characters all the time. Pliny the younger is the only one I can remember.
This argument structure comes from a Christian philosopher and modal logician, Alvin Plantinga. Dawkins took it in response to the Ontological Argument to try and disprove God.
And there is no need for you to worry about our God, who has not been proven to not exist, especially if you are not a believer. Just dont worry about it then.
I am not a christian, but I find Richard Dawkins extremely ridiculous and illogical. I don't like him at all, and I find it offensive when christians throw his ''theory'' in my face when discussing religion. He doesn't represent my views on evolution or anything at all basically, and I don't like to be put in the same boat as him.
This is making a fool of oneself in a published book
you mean like every apologist ever? I dont know where you got this nor do i really fully understand it because its confusing but i can conclude that this is only one of literally hundreds of arguments against gods existence. so this one isnt very good. So what? It isnt the strongest one ive ever seen.
If you don't understand this argument, then I can't explain to you why the other arguments against Gods existence are illogical because you won't understand them either
Logic is NOT evidence. Logic is what is applied to evidence to reach conclusions.
1) There is no evidence for God
2) there cant be logic applied to nonexistent evidence
3) therfore still no case for God
The only thing that can PROVE God would be some kind of scientific testing which is impossible. So whereas we might be able to find suggesting evidence (and barely a pinch of it) we cannot jump to the conclusion that it proves god because it doesnt
If logic is not evidence, then the evidence points to nothing. Therefore, your arguments don't prove anything and cannot prove anything except that the thing you are holding in your hands is real. Therefore, China is not real because you cannot infer that it is. The moon is not real because you cannot know that there is a forcefield above the earth making it seem like that. Without logic, then reality literally becomes subjective. I can't argue with someone who thinks that logic is illogical.
If logic is not evidence, then the evidence points to nothing
what? logic isnt evidence because logic isnt a tangible thing. You cant say, X is true because logic. Logic alone doesnt mean anything. Logic being applied to pre-existing evidence is what points the evidence towards a conclusion.
Evidence is like a compass without a magnet. it just sits there and isnt really good for anything. Logic is the magnet that once its put in, allows the evidence to point North (or to a conclusion).
Evidence is also the same for every person and is indifferent to opinion. logic, however, can be applied differently by different people, or people percieve logic differently.
All of this being said, logic alone isnt evidence let alone proof. Im not saying its useless, its obviously extremely important but youre just claiming that flat out logic all by itself is evidence for something when, if it isnt being applied to existing evidence, it is not.
You need to read some Plato. People can rationally prove things such as 1+1=2. Logic is the root of math. Therefore, if you are saying that math cannot be proof, then you are dead wrong.
I have yet to find ANY in all my years of debate and research let alone some that meets the massive burden of proof on the extraordinary claim of God but by all means cite it.
3)You don't believe in the existent evidence.
Ive seen the arguments. I know they exist but they are not evidence of his existence. You just believe that what isnt evidence IS evidence or your standard of evidence is substantially lower than mine and many others.
4)There is reason to believe he is, you're just biased about it
Compared to scientific explainations no there actually isnt. Im just as biased as you except i dont shoot down theistic arguments and just say "nu uh" i actually dispute them with science and other methods and they just dont stand up to it at all. Plus ive seen very prominent debators destroy the arguments is debates as well against the most prominent christian apologists like Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and Kent Hovind. ALL of their arguments have been demolished.
Quite logical, it makes sense if a divine creator was in existence he would lack the achievement of non existence, if he was to be in existence what success has been evident? A race of humans in which kill one another leave homeless people on the streets while others prosper? i think not.
You didn't rationally how so, just because you say doesn't mean it's correct. if it has nothing to do with the discussion, please tell me what might the discussion be about; and also how mine is not in relevance to it.
The discussion is about the illogical attempt at destroying the ontological argument. You started talking about homeless people. That is a red herring.
You my friend are closed minded, let me summarize it.
Homeless, being the poverty of the world are not what so ever a joyous sight. If you acknowledge the lack of achievement within the world you can understand this thought more. I myself believe in a higher power it being what so ever but each "higher power," has one about it with infinite domains creating as we speak. So his existence wouldn't be a handicap, as the guy here said. I understand his last part, i just disagree.
Cute, you have a disagreement that makes you upset therefore you must ban him. By the way red herring is usually used for stories; i would be misconceiving the statement. I would rather be banned from someone who can't introspectively think lolz. ciao!
This is not logic. This is making a fool of oneself in a published book.
Explain why this isnt logical otherwise I don`t believe your assessment. Also, if this came from a book there is probably a whole chapter of missing information and you are presenting it to make us inclined to think its foolish.
He is going from that which is logically impossible to that which does not exist. The reasoning process is itself not logical. He is saying that God can do the logically impossible, which is not the classic sense of maximal greatness. That means also that his final premise is not carried through; he does not carry through the logic, which is the capability to do the logically impossible. He presents a logical impossibility from God and then supposes that He does not exist, which would mean that A=~A, which means that his conclusion is not correct. However, if the classical sense of maximal greatness is true, then the entire argument is illogical.
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
This is a general statement and is one that is most certainly true.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
The merit of an achievement is the product of it`s natural quality and the ability of its creator? I suppose that makes sense.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
That seems fair, I mean if a kid paints the Mona Lisa with his toe's he's probably going to outshine an art student who is using his bare hands.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
So the worst handicap for a godly creator would be non-existence. Seems about right. Can't get worse then that.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore if we think that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can think a greater being namely, one who created everything while not existing?
Going back to my toe to hand analogy. This seems logically correct. That non-existent being creating the universe would certainly be better then any existent being.
6. An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God
which did not exist.
True, because he's not saying god has no power just that god doesn't exist. This isn't to hard to wrap your head around if you really try. It totally discredits the bible which shows God existing and interacting with humans and is merely arriving at the conclusion that a non-existent God is greater then a god that exists. Which would make a lot of sense.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.
As it should be to be consistent and logical with everything that has happened in the last 2000 years. God hasn't made an appearance in 2000 years in any historical book or even in credible human view. Especially my own. Logically it makes sense that there is no God.
So the worst handicap for a godly creator would be non-existence. Seems about right. Can't get worse then that.
That is logically impossible. We have right there crossed from logical to illogical. His argument is, therefore, either illogical or he is supposing that God can do the logically impossible. If God can do the logically impossible then He could be real and not real at the same time. The argument is illogical and an embarrassment to the atheistic community. Atheistic philosophers even wrote to Dawkins saying that he needed to rethink the argument because he had gotten it completely wrong.
On the contrary, physicists believe that the universe logically came from nothing. Nothing being no existence. So it's not completely outlandish Lolzors
And that proves right there that science is completely illogical. What are you going to believe: logic or science? Here's a hint: logic. Why do I say that? Because it logic is illogical, then A=~A and that would mean that reality=~reality, which means reality literally becomes subjective. That means that reality would be a bunch f pink elves floating in the air at the same time as cotton candy rivers at the same time as having neither of those. Science is illogical and hope you see it from your own post. If you don't, then I can't help you because logic is no use.
Lol, that's not illogical actually. Do you believe that love and hate are two different things? Also, you obviously didn't read my post because that post stated that nothing and something are theoretically the same thing. With a good basis as to why that is. With more understanding of it then you.
It is illogical but I wouldn't to you it wouldn't be because logic is illogical and that which is illogical and logical. Let me explain why something coming from nothing is illogical in a proof. Nothing is written like this 0. Everything that "is" is nothing, then 0=x. If 0=x, then it cannot equal not 0. 0 cannot equal anything other than itself. You are supposing that 0=1. That is illogical. That means that logic is illogical and then my conclusion falls into place.
Do you believe that love and hate are two different things?
It is illogical but I wouldn't to you it wouldn't be because logic is illogical and that which is illogical and logical.
What the fuck did you just say? o.O
Let me explain why something coming from nothing is illogical in a proof. Nothing is written like this 0. Everything that "is" is nothing, then 0=x. If 0=x, then it cannot equal not 0. 0 cannot equal anything other than itself. You are supposing that 0=1. That is illogical. That means that logic is illogical and then my conclusion falls into place.
No seriously, you're not getting it. Quantum mechanics has particles popping in and out of existence all the time. That is fundamental proof that something comes from nothing. You're argument is invalid.
Do you believe that love and hate are two different things?
In a sense
They`re not dude... They are literally the same thing being interpreted on a slider scale to a degree. It is like hot an cold. There is no difference between them except for the interpretation of how much energy is present.
And quantum mechanics has issues with experimental physics. Also, quantum mechanics assumes that there is something already there; though that something is not necessarily energy, which is what composes matter. There is nothing illogical about that because that is a mere factor of cause and effect. However, something that is nothing, which means that there is nothing at all, producing something is illogical.
They`re not dude... They are literally the same thing being interpreted on a slider scale to a degree. It is like hot an cold. There is no difference between them except for the interpretation of how much energy is present.
And quantum mechanics has issues with experimental physics.
There`s also issues with your ability to reason. Logic is about consistency and regardless of how you look at it nothing is something therefore something is nothing. It`s logical because I can ask you to think about nothing and you will inevitably have to think of something to symbolize nothing. There is no way around it.
Also, quantum mechanics assumes that there is something already there
You are looking at a different part of quantum mechanics. I`m looking at the part where it says virtual particles arrive out of nothing exist for a moment then return to nothing.
though that something is not necessarily energy, which is what composes matter.
Where the hell are you reading that from? I've never heard at any time anyone say that something is not necessarily energy. I've only ever heard that all matter is energy. Please provide some links to where you are getting your misconstrued information.
There is nothing illogical about that because that is a mere factor of cause and effect.
... I think you're just coming up with this off the top of your head again.
However, something that is nothing, which means that there is nothing at all, producing something is illogical.
Nothing is something, therefore it is not illogical to assume that it can produce something according to your logic.
I can suppose in theory.
Good for you?
They are the same thing no matter what you think. Hitlers strong hate for the jews is just a dirty way of describing the love he felt for ending the jewish people. How much care and detail he put into making sure that they died.
And I have already told you that quantum mechanics assumes that there "is".
I said this: "though that something is not necessarily energy, which is what composes matter." and you said this:
I've only ever heard that all matter is energy.
That is the very same thing but you are complaining about what I said...... You just want to debate... you don't want to learn. I'm done trying to argue with if you are just an antagonist.
That is the very same thing but you are complaining about what I said...... You just want to debate... you don't want to learn. I'm done trying to argue with if you are just an antagonist.
Actually, I am learning. A lot about how flawed your logic is. I'm pretty sure you believe that everything you feel, taste, touch and see is real. When really they are fallacious interpretations of what it really is. Light for example doesn't exist. This entire universe is in reality darkness. We interpret a wave length that corresponds with heat radiation. That being said it's all in our heads.
I think you are confused a little. There had to be something that created the universe, right? You assume this creator is God, Dawkins assumes this creator is natural forces. If the creator is an all powerful God, than creating the universe is not a big deal. Just a snap of the fingers and boom universe created. The hardest way to make a universe would be the creator being natural forces. Natural forces don't have any supernatural power, so the creation of the universe would be much more of an accomplishment.
I disagree in the relevance. What if we change Dawkins argument to a God with unlimited power or a God with zero power. Doesn't that get away from the ontological part and show that it is logical for the God with no power to be better?
No, that doesn't answer the question. The argument is that God is maximally excellent in all capacities. That is what Dawkins is trying to rebut by saying that a maximally great being would be nonexistent because He could create and not be real at the same time; and he has done a horrible job at defending it because he goes from a state of logical impossibility to that of definiteness, while ignoring the logical being illogical. That means that God is either logical and illogical and His argument is pointless, or the argument is illogical and the ontological argument stands.
That would be illogical. It is a pointless statement. God cannot be anything other than God, otherwise He is not God. God is maximally excellent in all capacities: that is the argument.
So far, there is nothing illogical about that statement. Please tell me how the statement is illogical.
It is a pointless statement.
Doesn't make it illogical.
God cannot be anything other than God, otherwise He is not God. God is maximally excellent in all capacities: that is the argument.
My statement does not have anything to do with this. In fact if he was maximally excellent he would have zero power. Zero power would mean he had the most handicap. And according to Dawkins' 3rd statement, the most difficult thing would be to create the universe with a handicap. Wouldn't it be more excellent to do something that was difficult and not easy? Or do you challenge the handicap statement as well?
That's the point. Maximal greatness does not derive from Handicap. That's the point: he doesn't understand the argument. Being maximally great is to be maximally great; that means that one cannot, by definition, have a handicap. And if a handicap is to derive maximal greatness, then that necessitates that there is a being for one cannot be handicapped unless existent. And one cannot create unless existent. Therefore, multiple premises are incorrect.
That's the point. Maximal greatness does not derive from Handicap.
Then you are arguing against his other point.
That's the point: he doesn't understand the argument.
He made a claim that you are against and you argued that something else that he said was wrong, you are the one who doesn't understand.
And if a handicap is to derive maximal greatness, then that necessitates that there is a being for one cannot be handicapped unless existent. And one cannot create unless existent. Therefore, multiple premises are incorrect.
Ok, but with my revised terms, this is not broken. So, now the only problem is the handicap which you previously did not argue against. But you still aren't disputing the possibility of a God with no power.
I already told you the illogical parts of it. And I already told you that it is logically incoherent to say that God has no power in this argument. I have already explained it to you how multiple points are illogical. Please don't respond again with the same questions because I have already answered how it is illogical.
And I already told you that it is logically incoherent to say that God has no power in this argument.
I say so is not a reason. How is it logically incoherent to say God has no power?
I have already explained it to you how multiple points are illogical.
You explained one thing that was illogical. I fixed it. Then you explained how something else completely unrelated was logically flawed. I am trying to figure out if the change I made has a logical flaw, but you don't reveal the actual flaw.
Please don't respond again with the same questions because I have already answered how it is illogical.
I said God with no power, and you said God is God. I don't see how you have shown that my statement is illogical.
The argument refers God to be maximally great. That means that He cannot be anything other than maximally great. That means that it is a logical fallacy to say that God does not have power because that would mean that He is not maximally great. I have already told you this.
Dawkins is arguing that maximally great comes from doing difficult tasks with a handicap. In this context having no powers would make him greater, so I don't believe that a logical problem exists here. Of course you don't agree that the handicap makes Him maximally great, so you disagree with that logic. But, I believe you don't have anything against this logic of no power.
I have already told you this.
It didn't make any sense the first time you said it. Thank you for clarifying.
That would be a spectacular achievement. That is not the argument, though. That is what I have been saying: he doesn't understand the argument. Doing something more spectacular is not the variables to determine maximal greatness