• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Theists: Please give me a reason to believe in your superpowered invisible overlord

punshhh said:
Yes and to compare God/god with an imagined object, in order to demonstrate that it is pointless to consider the existence of such a god, is a fallacy.
Click to expand...

You still don't get the fact that 'god', your 'god', nor yet any 'gods' is/are exactly as imaginary as TIPULIYG.

There is precisely as much evidence of the existence of 'god', of a 'god', of your 'god', or of any 'gods' as there is for the existence of "The Unicorn", your "unicorn", or any "unicorns"; or of the Teapot. (Further, any such supposed evidence is of the same quality.)

If you disagree, you are welcome to present evidence (concrete, practical, objective, empirical evidence) of your 'god', and its existence.
 
Stone said:
Actually, that's not my core argument. My core argument is that the "progenitors of social justice and altruism" are pioneering theists who always introduce some new take on deity that makes the priests of their day nervous. Naturally, theism in and of itself is never news. Instead, it's the counter-cultural theisms that these progenitors always introduce that's the real story here. If their theisms matched their culture, there'd be no story at all. But there is a story because they don't match.

Stone
Click to expand...

Your core argument sounds suspiciously like the fundie Christian assertion that "Science is a Christian method of thought, because pioneering scientist 'X' was a Christian" (usually followed by a long list of scientists who were also Christians). Showing that scientists were usually Christians in a time when almost everyone was (when, in fact, it could be dangerous to be anything else) doesn't establish that science is either a Christian invention or proof of its truth.

Same thing here- establishing a propinquity (which is really all you have) between "pioneering theists" and advances in morality, ethics, or altruism doesn't establish theism as a cause, much less the truth at its core.
 
punshhh said:
Not proof you mean.
Click to expand...
No, he was correct in saying that it wasn't evidence. Belief in anything is not evidence for its existence unless you wish to dilute the meaning of evidence down until it means nothing at all.

Anyone reaching the conclusion that there is not a God/god, is likewise adopting a position on the issue in the absence of proof evidence.
Click to expand...
FTFY. So, is that a problem? Conclusions can be changed later when there is actual evidence. Based on the lack of evidence for gods and unicorns, I've arrived at the interim conclusion that neither exists.

Based on a lack of evidence for either, have you arrived at a conclusion about either one's existence?
 
Slowvehicle said:
[woo!theist] "The reason you don't see 'god' where you are pointing is that you are pointing in the wrong place. The only 'gap' is the'gap' in your faith."[/woo!theist]
Click to expand...

Hey! Don't point that thing at me! I only look like a god . . . .
 
Slowvehicle said:
You still don't get the fact that 'god', your 'god', nor yet any 'gods' is/are exactly as imaginary as TIPULIYG.

There is precisely as much evidence of the existence of 'god', of a 'god', of your 'god', or of any 'gods' as there is for the existence of "The Unicorn", your "unicorn", or any "unicorns"; or of the Teapot. (Further, any such supposed evidence is of the same quality.)

If you disagree, you are welcome to present evidence (concrete, practical, objective, empirical evidence) of your 'god', and its existence.
Click to expand...
God/god is not exclusively an imaginary being.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
False analogy?

How so? I think it's apt.
Click to expand...
God/god is not an imaginary being. True, imagination is required to conceive of it, but it is a philosophical object and as such can be considered as an object a priori to human imagination.

But I'll see your fallacy and raise you one: straw man.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not in this thread, but it is suggested on this forum.

Unless someone here argued "...it is pointless to consider the existence of such a god...", you're arguing against a position no one has taken, and the very fact this has been argued from both sides indicates that the parties so engaged do not consider it "pointless".
Click to expand...
I am not going to defend the precise wording, as I was merely making the suggestion that positions such as the one adopted by pastafarians make a mockery of serious consideration.
 
RoboTimbo said:
No, he was correct in saying that it wasn't evidence. Belief in anything is not evidence for its existence unless you wish to dilute the meaning of evidence down until it means nothing at all.


FTFY. So, is that a problem? Conclusions can be changed later when there is actual evidence. Based on the lack of evidence for gods and unicorns, I've arrived at the interim conclusion that neither exists.

Based on a lack of evidence for either, have you arrived at a conclusion about either one's existence?
Click to expand...

Ahh, yes I left you hanging on a thread didn't I. Well the thread is cut by my response in the post before this one.
 
punshhh said:
Ahh, yes I left you hanging on a thread didn't I.
Click to expand...
No. Did you think you did?

Well the thread is cut by my response in the post before this one.
Click to expand...
No, did you think it did?

You avoided actually answering the question. Based on the lack of evidence for either, have you arrived at a conclusion about the existence of either one?
 
punshhh said:
God/god is not exclusively an imaginary being.
Click to expand...

Unless and until you present objective, concrete, practical, empirical evidence that 'god', a "god', your version of 'god', or any 'gods', it is, in fact, a completely imaginary entity; no more "real", or less imaginary, than The Unicorn, or the pixies in your silverware drawer, or Terran Ambassador Plenipotentiary Jame Retief, or 'Squatch.

I eagerly await your evidence (concrete, practical, empirical, physical, objective evidence) that any 'god' exists (much less the vengeful, incompetent, tantrum-throwing, praise-hungry, inconsistent spoiled child of the xian bible...).
 
punshhh said:
God/god is not an imaginary being. True, imagination is required to conceive of it, but it is a philosophical object and as such can be considered as an object a priori to human imagination.
Click to expand...

The fact that people have imagined 'gods' of all stripes, from Huehuecoyotl through Mazu-Mazu, past Kali, and on to Manu'u Legba, does not make any 'gods' any more real than the red-ball-that-only-exists-as-an-idea-in-your-mind.

A "philosophical object" that is imagined to exist, but for which no scintilla of practical, concrete, physical, objective evidence can be presented, is a thing of the imagination.

punshhh said:
Perhaps not in this thread, but it is suggested on this forum.
Click to expand...

The claim that any of the 'gods' exist outside the imagination is not so much a fallacy as a plain error. There is more evidence that The Unicorn exists (after all, we know of many things similar to unicorns, making the idea of a unicorn at least plausible) than there is of any 'god' (after all, there is no evidence of anything similar to any 'gods'.

punshhh said:
I am not going to defend the precise wording, as I was merely making the suggestion that positions such as the one adopted by pastafarians make a mockery of serious consideration.
Click to expand...

The FSM is exactly as 'real' as any 'god' that has ever been proposed. The mere claim that the concept of 'god' is in the smallest bit reasonable makes a mockery of serious discussion.
 
punshhh said:
God/god is not an imaginary being. True, imagination is required to conceive of it, but it is a philosophical object and as such can be considered as an object a priori to human imagination.
Click to expand...

Philosophical objects are not required to be non-imaginary, so defining it as an object says nothing about whether it is imaginary or not.

It is as if someone claimed that they saw a red apple and you responded that apples cant' be red, they are fruits, and as such must be fruits no matter what you think you ate.

Slowvehicle said:
Built like the Buddha?
Click to expand...

How the hell do I turn off this web cam!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom