ASSERTING God's Existence

[Spenser]

The newest latest and greatest argument for the nonexistence of God. this argument is styled after many theistic argument and debating techniques I have come across. Ready???

The Argument from Assertion!

1. I exist
2. God is spelled G-O-D
3. The Universe exists
4. Homer Simpson is funny (duhoo)

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Lets see, premises 1 - 4 are true so the conclusion must be true. Doesn't this seem an awful lot like many theistic arguments? I can further this by claiming this argument has never been refuted and the logic is sound. :rolleyes:

[Arvel Joffi]

When you assert you make an ass out of e and rt

That's the funniest goddamned thing I've read in a long time!

[Hopeful Monsters]

Assume you know about over 340 incontrovertible proofs Here (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

[Shinobi]

Well, I voted #1.

I don't think there's anything wrong with assertions per say, but they must be backed up with something. Theistic arguments make assertions and in the odd case they they are backed up it is with something which is invalid from a logical point of view.

[Hopeful Monsters]

1. God is human bluff
2. Religion is fluff
3. Homer Simpson drinks Duff
4. Therefore Homer exists

[Spenser]

Can a rock make God so heavy that he can't be lifted?

[Wyz_sub10]

At first glance, this appears to be more of a humour topic.

We'll give it a couple of posts to "find itself", otherwise it goes bye-bye.

[Spenser]

I was trying to demonstrate the point that the majority of theistic arguments I come across seem to be nothing more than assertions. Its frustrating to try and debate an endless string of assertions... :banghead:

[Satan]

@spenser - Of course they are. If you are looking for rationale and logic, a theist is the wrong place to look. Whether you are an atheist, an agnostic, or a Satanist :cool: , there is no proof and there is no rationale for a theist's way of thinking.

[Hedshaker]

1) Big turtles exist

2) Great A'tuin was created

3) Therefore, Terry Pratchet is God :notworthy

How'd I do?

bya

[Satan]

I'd say Terry Pratchett is a Seraphim. Neil Gaiman is closer to God in my book/book collection. ;)

Religous arguments... Hehe, why is it again that politics and religion are nono topics of discussion?

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Spenser
I was trying to demonstrate the point that the majority of theistic arguments I come across seem to be nothing more than assertions. Its frustrating to try and debate an endless string of assertions... :banghead:

Could you give some examples?

[Spenser]

Originally posted by the_cave
Could you give some examples?

Easy, simply read most anything BGiC, TheGhost, Theophilus or the SoTC have to say. Especially in most freewill / omniscience threads...

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by Spenser
The newest latest and greatest argument for the nonexistence of God. this argument is styled after many theistic argument and debating techniques I have come across. Ready???

The Argument from Assertion!

1. I exist
2. God is spelled G-O-D
3. The Universe exists
4. Homer Simpson is funny (duhoo)

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Lets see, premises 1 - 4 are true so the conclusion must be true. Doesn't this seem an awful lot like many theistic arguments? I can further this by claiming this argument has never been refuted and the logic is sound. :rolleyes:

I have found that most theists/fundies say things like as follows for their arguments for the existence of god:

How did we get here

If god didn't create the universe, how did it get started.

Something so complex as the human eye, comeon now, only a highly intelligent designer had to do it. It just didn't create itelf.

If the sun was just slightly closer to the earth, we would all burn up, only a God would know how far to place the earth away from the sun at the right distance.

We are God's special creation and the center of the universe.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by BlessNot
I have found that most theists/fundies say things like as follows for their arguments for the existence of god:

How did we get here

If god didn't create the universe, how did it get started.

Something so complex as the human eye, comeon now, only a highly intelligent designer had to do it. It just didn't create itelf.

If the sun was just slightly closer to the earth, we would all burn up, only a God would know how far to place the earth away from the sun at the right distance.

We are God's special creation and the center of the universe.

Its funny really that people can think that things so complex must have a designer and yet hold a belief that God, the most complex thing imaginable requires no designer... :rolleyes:

[Aravnah Ornan]

Originally posted by Spenser
Its funny really that people can think that things so complex must have a designer and yet hold a belief that God, the most complex thing imaginable requires no designer... :rolleyes: Or that because everything must have a cause, G-d has to exist -- but G-d requires no cause.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
The newest latest and greatest argument for the nonexistence of God. this argument is styled after many theistic argument and debating techniques I have come across. Ready???

The Argument from Assertion!

1. I exist
2. God is spelled G-O-D
3. The Universe exists
4. Homer Simpson is funny (duhoo)

Therefore God doesn't exist.

Lets see, premises 1 - 4 are true so the conclusion must be true. Doesn't this seem an awful lot like many theistic arguments? I can further this by claiming this argument has never been refuted and the logic is sound. :rolleyes:

I'm sure if I were more clever, I'd understand this but could you give me an example where you've encounterd this type of argument? Please?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Aravnah Ornan
Or that because everything must have a cause, G-d has to exist -- but G-d requires no cause.

It's really humerous that people who claim to be intelligent can't see the ontological difference between God as a "simple," spiritual entity and the incredible complex nature of the material universe.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by BlessNot
I have found that most theists/fundies say things like as follows for their arguments for the existence of god:

How did we get here

If god didn't create the universe, how did it get started.

Something so complex as the human eye, comeon now, only a highly intelligent designer had to do it. It just didn't create itelf.

If the sun was just slightly closer to the earth, we would all burn up, only a God would know how far to place the earth away from the sun at the right distance.

We are God's special creation and the center of the universe.

And how did you answer them?

What complex mechanism have you ever encountered which did not require as designer? Don't beg the question by asserting evolution as the explanation for complex biological forms.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
Easy, simply read most anything BGiC, TheGhost, Theophilus or the SoTC have to say. Especially in most freewill / omniscience threads...

This is a complete misrepresentation of my position and betrays a limited ability to follow argumentation on your part.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Shinobi
Well, I voted #1.

I don't think there's anything wrong with assertions per say, but they must be backed up with something. Theistic arguments make assertions and in the odd case they they are backed up it is with something which is invalid from a logical point of view.

If this is generally true as you suggest, you should have no trouble giving numerouse examples; but I'll settle for one.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by ArvelJoffi
That's the funniest goddamned thing I've read in a long time!

You must not read much.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by TruthIsTold
Assume you know about over 340 incontrovertible proofs Here (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm)

Assume you know that most of these are complete misrepresentations of theistic arguments, e.g., the transcendental argument and the classic teleological argument.

It's so much easier to defeat our opponents arguments when we misrepresent them, isn't it?

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
I was trying to demonstrate the point that the majority of theistic arguments I come across seem to be nothing more than assertions. Its frustrating to try and debate an endless string of assertions... :banghead:

Here's one:

1. Spencer believes he exists.
2. Spencer cannot prove that he exists.
3. Therefore, this thread does not exist.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
I was trying to demonstrate the point that the majority of theistic arguments I come across seem to be nothing more than assertions. Its frustrating to try and debate an endless string of assertions... :banghead:

No you weren't. If that had been your true intent, you would have given examples. Escpecially as they are so plentiful.
But you have failed to give such examples even when requested.

The fact is you mistake ridicule for argumentation and you'll think you've accomplished something significant by posting this little foolishness.

[Spenser]

Originally posted by theophilus
No you weren't. If that had been your true intent, you would have given examples. Escpecially as they are so plentiful.
But you have failed to give such examples even when requested.

The fact is you mistake ridicule for argumentation and you'll think you've accomplished something significant by posting this little foolishness.

Then perhaps you are ready to tackle my argument in Open Debate on God Part II?

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61264)

Or is it the best you can do to assert I have no basis for anything I say and yet you asserting God is some sort of basis for your arguments? :boohoo:

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
Then perhaps you are ready to tackle my argument in Open Debate on God Part II?

Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61264)

Or is it the best you can do to assert I have no basis for anything I say and yet you asserting God is some sort of basis for your arguments? :boohoo:

Well, unless you can give some example where I merely "assert" the existence of God, your challenge is meaningless.

That's three times now you've ducked a request for examples.

Can we go for a record?

[Spenser]

Since theo was so kind as to point out my misspelling of existence (which is weird to me my spell check didn't catch it) might I encourage a moderator to correct the title?

PS Theo, I've given you examples of you asserting arguments in the Open debate thread. I believe as a presup., that is all that can be done is assert then attack the opponents position. It is far fetched to see how this somehow proves God's existence...

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by theophilus
And how did you answer them?

What complex mechanism have you ever encountered which did not require as designer? Don't beg the question by asserting evolution as the explanation for complex biological forms.

Actually those are the questions I used to confront atheists with before I deconverted from the chains of mindcontrolled Christianity and biblical fundamentalism.

Are you implying that an all powerful deity would be against using evolution ?

This is a quote from Tod S. Greene:

"If evolution implies that God does not exist, then believers in God could not reasonably accept evolution, and those who accept the extensive evidence for evolution cannot rationally believe in God. Of course, this idea automatically serves to prejudice theists against consideration of evolution and evolutionists against consideration of theism".

For the rest of the story:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/notatheism.html

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Spenser
Since theo was so kind as to point out my misspelling of existence (which is weird to me my spell check didn't catch it) might I encourage a moderator to correct the title?

PS Theo, I've given you examples of you asserting arguments in the Open debate thread. I believe as a presup., that is all that can be done is assert then attack the opponents position. It is far fetched to see how this somehow proves God's existence...

Let's see; that makes four times you've ducked a request for examples (not just mine but others). I guess you think just "making assertions" about theistic arguments is okay.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by BlessNot
Actually those are the questions I used to confront atheists with before I deconverted from the chains of mindcontrolled Christianity and biblical fundamentalism.

Funny, you didn't answer my question about complex mechanisms. You must have caught the "duck" the question bug from Spenser.

Are you implying that an all powerful deity would be against using evolution ?

I don't know where this came from but I'm stating that any evolutionary scenario is inconsistent withthe God who has revealled himself and his purpose for creation, i.e., the God of the Bible.

[BlessNot]

Originally posted by theophilus
Funny, you didn't answer my question about complex mechanisms. You must have caught the "duck" the question bug from Spenser. I'm not ducking anything, I don't have an explanation for complex mechanisms you might be referring to. Why do you think it is necessary to use god to explain everything that is complex in the universe ? HOw about the complex mechanism of the cockroach and the fly? Did your god of the bible create those and for what purpose? Does he have a sick sense of humor perhaps?Originally posted by theophilus I don't know where this came from but I'm stating that any evolutionary scenario is inconsistent withthe God who has revealled himself and his purpose for creation, i.e., the God of the Bible.The god of the bible you are referring to is nothing more than an almighty screw up right from the beginning of his alledged creation account.

Did you read this essay I posted in my other post? evidently not.
Give it another shot, you might think differently

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/The...notatheism.html

[Spurious Quirk]

Originally posted by theophilus
Originally posted by BlessNot
I have found that most theists/fundies say things like as follows for their arguments for the existence of god:

How did we get here

If god didn't create the universe, how did it get started.

Something so complex as the human eye, comeon now, only a highly intelligent designer had to do it. It just didn't create itelf.

If the sun was just slightly closer to the earth, we would all burn up, only a God would know how far to place the earth away from the sun at the right distance.

We are God's special creation and the center of the universe.


And how did you answer them?

What complex mechanism have you ever encountered which did not require as designer? Don't beg the question by asserting evolution as the explanation for complex biological forms.

A complex 'mechanism'? If by that you mean "machine", then I guess all machines are designed (unless one also plays loose and fast with the term "machine").

But if you mean complex phenomena, then I have a few examples: snowflakes, planetary systems, (natural) crystals, hurricanes, galaxies.....

...and if all that isn't your cup of tea, then how about economies? No one designed the economy, it merely arose from the interactions of many individuals attempting to make a living. Attempts have been made to structure the economy (such as with regulations), and to control it; yet no one can reasonably be said to have designed it (at best they have slightly modified it).

Cheers

[Spenser]

Originally posted by theophilus
Let's see; that makes four times you've ducked a request for examples (not just mine but others). I guess you think just "making assertions" about theistic arguments is okay.

What a load of crap, I just told you I pointed them out in the Open debate on God part2 thread. Who's ducking who?

Here, before you accuse me again

Eternality is not a "long time;" it is no time. It is a dimension assertion, a mode of existence assertion. God has not existed for a long time assertion, he is timeless assertion.

He did not decide to create at some point in time assertion. God does not look into the future and see what will happen there assertion. All time is laid out before God as a solitary entity assertion.

His ability to interact with his creation in time is a function of his omnipresence assertion.