@Kay 17, God is the grand designer of the universe and He loves order. That is why there is law governing the universe and its planetary systems. The earth is at the right distance from the sun, anymore closer it'll be too hot to sustain life, any further it'll be too cold for most species to survive. And by the way laws are not made by chance, they come from well thought out plans and purposes.

Mr_Anony: @logicboy
Your argument is lacking coherence: let us look through what you've said so far.


You do realize from the above that you are insinuating that the atheist worldview has nothing to say about the wrongness of slavery. In other words you can only legitimately contemplate the wrongness of slavery from a theist point of view.


Here you are directly contradicting yourself. The atheist worldview cannot both exist and not exist.

My argument has been simple from the start. As long as you maintain an atheist worldview, you have nothing to say about morality.

You cannot say that you are an atheist and there is nothing wrong with slavery in your atheist worldview and then also say that slavery is wrong. That will be contradicting yourself. Also turning around again to deny that your worldview is a worldview just messes up your whole argument completely.

This is why I say that you lack the ability and discipline to properly follow an argument to it's logical conclusion. You might want to clarify and properly define your stance before engaging anyone in a debate.....

........or you can just ramble some more. I couldn't care less really.

Can everybody see the foolishness of Mr Anony?


1) Anony was the one that first used the term "atheist worldview". Which I had to repeat to show him that he was wrong. I never use such a term left alone.

2) Atheism has no worldview, no ideologies, no doctrine- it is just simply a factual stance on the existence of God.

3) I am not moral because of atheism. I am moral because I am a human (humans already come prepackaged with an evolutionary sense of morality) which we hone through logic and interactions with society

4) I am not moral because I am an atheist. I am also moral because I think logically.


5) I am much more than an atheist, I am also a human and a rational person like other people. Anony reduces my being to only an atheist or worse an "atheist worldview". Anony thinks that atheism is like religion which dogmatically dictates a persons life and so you can ascertain an atheist dogma like how you can get a christian dogma to understand the christian sense of morality.






Now, regarding my quotes you put up there, you were quote mining and also you remixed the meaning of some quotes. There was no contradiction in my stance;



Here is the first quote in full (which you cut short to confuse others and give a different meanin)

Logicboy03:



Facts and worldview are two different things. Facts are true no matter where or when they are. Worldviews are like opinions.


Fact; slavery is wrong and inhuman

Worldview; Slavery is not wrong in the atheist worldview.

The fact in the above comment was my stance while the worldview was your misguided opinion which I restated. So how can a worldview which I never made or supported be in contradiction to this my second quote which you put up;

Logicboy03:

There is no atheist worldview. I gave you reasons from an evolutionary and a logical point of view.

[size=14pt]Can everybody see the disgusting tactics of Anony?


When he realised that he lost the argument, he went ahead to lie about my stance by putting his own misguided opinion as my stance (which I opposed). He then used that to say that I was making contradictory stances



Worse off, notice that he had no rebuttal for a logical and evolutionary source of morality and thats why he tried to lie that I was contradicting myself to avoid admitting that these are very much the sources of morality that go beyond christianity[/size]

Na today?

There is a reason he was knighted as the Artful Dodger and Master Twister

cyrexx: Na today?

There is a reason he was knighted as the Artful Dodger and Master Twister

Anonyism; the art of escaping arguments with style

diehard: @Kay 17, God is the grand designer of the universe and He loves order. That is why there is law governing the universe and its planetary systems. The earth is at the right distance from the sun, anymore closer it'll be too hot to sustain life, any further it'll be too cold for most species to survive. And by the way laws are not made by chance, they come from well thought out plans and purposes.

watch this video about God's design and fine tuning of the universe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE

Logicboy03: [size=14pt]Can everybody see the disgusting tactics of Anony?


When he realised that he lost the argument, he went ahead to lie about my stance by putting his own mishuided opinion as his stance (which I opposed). He then used that to say that I was making contradictory stances



Worse off, notice that he had no rebuttal for a logical and evolutionary source of morality and thats why he tried to lie that I was contradicting myself to avoid admitting that these are very much the sources of morality that goes beyond christianity[/size]

Hahahahaha............calling for public sympathy are we now? It's funny how you like to declare yourself "winner". Sorry my friend, increasing the font size of your comment doesn't make them any less unimpressive.

I'll take it then that you have made an attempt above to clarify your stance so I'll proceed to look at them.

1) Anony was the one that first used the term "atheist worldview". Which I had to repeat to show him that he was wrong. I never use such a term left alone.

2) Atheism has no worldview, no ideologies, no doctrine- it is just simply a factual stance on the existence of God.

I'll take this to be your real stance. And with that, we can both agree that atheism has nothing to say on the issue of morality.

3) I am not moral because of atheism. I am moral because I am a human (humans already come prepackaged with an evolutionary sense of morality) which we hone through logic and interactions with society

Now this is a little bit interesting. You say here that your morality isn't born from atheism but because you are human. The next thing you argue is that humans come with a prepackaged sense of morality. I agree up to this point, but where I disagree is where you suggest that evolution birthed our morality. This is bizarre because evolution by definition does not have a will. There is no such thing as a better or worse when it comes to evolution. Even if we became extinct, it makes no difference because another species will simply replace ours, if we consumed all other species, it equally makes no difference. Evolution isn't at all interested in the preservation nor the annihilation of human beings not to talk of good and evil.

At best, all you have done here is reply with the logiboy equivalent of "Goddidit" i.e. "we evolved that way" which when you look at it is not much different from "God made us that way". You score no points here.

4) I am not moral because I am an atheist. I am also moral because I think logically.

Lol, but then logic in itself like atheism has nothing to do with morality. You score no points here as well.

5) I am much more than an atheist, I am also a human and a rational person like other people. Anony reduces my being to only an atheist or worse an "atheist worldview". Anony thinks that atheism is like religion which dogmatically dictates a persons life and so you can ascertain an atheist dogma like how you can get a christian dogma to understand the christian sense of morality.

Lol, so you are much more than an atheist, you are a human being. So what? What is so special about being human anyway? What gives a human being value? Before you can even begin to talk about me "reducing your being" you must define how your being came to have value in the first place.

The same goes for our talk on the morality of slavery. before you can begin to the discuss the "equality" of human beings, and why slavery is wrong, you must first define their value. . . .and citing evolution does not help you at all because as far as evolution is concerned, there is nothing special about humans; you are not more important than a lizard, or a rat, or a bacteria cell or a beanstalk or any other organism trying to survive. Your argument fails terribly.

Here is the first quote in full (which you cut short to confuse others and give a different meanin)

This comment is evidence that you really don't read before you start typing. If you had been a tiny little bit more observant, you would have noticed that I posted your comment in full and all you really did was highlight another part of it, nonetheless, the comment still holds true that atheism has nothing to say about morality. To discuss morality at all, you must argue as something else other than an atheist.

@Mr Anony, i like your logic and analytical mind. Carry on!!

cyrexx:

watch this video about God's design and fine tuning of the universe


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95VTh4FA_gE

Interesting video, from what I see, the fact that God exists has been established as fact. The only problem now is that there were multiple perceptions of Him.

For instance, four people can watch a football match and have four entirely different opinions of the match having heated arguments about it even after watching the replays over and over again. This is not in anyway "proof" that the match didn't happen.

If I say cyrexx exists because he types on Nairaland. The only way to truly refute that argument is to prove that he doesn't type on Nairaland. It is irrelevant if two people disagree on whether cyrexx lives in sokoto or kafanchan or if cyrexx is French or Japanese.
The point still remains that cyrexx exists. An argument over the details cyrexx's nature is entirely different from an argument over whether he exists or not.

Unfortunately, the video portrays a classic example of a strawman argument.

The moment you start pondering the true nature of God, you have moved far away from atheism. The video shows a desperate attempt to cling on to the denial of God's existence and this raises the question.......perhaps you are not as open minded as you would have us believe?

Mr_Anony:
Hahahahaha............calling for public sympathy are we now? It's funny how you like to declare yourself "winner" sorry my friend, increasing the font size of your comment doesn't make them any less unimpressive.

I'll take it then that you have made an attempt above to clarify your stance so I'll proceed to look at them.

Public sympathy? Lol......I am only showing people that my claim about you and your dodging tactics is true.

Furthermore, I did not attempt to clarify my stance. You were the one that remixed and confused it. I only had to repeat it.

Mr_Anony:
I'll take this to be your real stance. And with that, we can both agree that atheism has nothing to say on the issue of morality.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]
Now this is a little bit interesting. You say here that your morality isn't born from atheism but because you are human. The next thing you argue is that humans come with a prepackaged sense of morality. I agree up to this point, but where I disagree is where you suggest that evolution birthed our morality. This is bizarre because evolution by definition does not have a will. There is no such thing as a better or worse when it comes to evolution. Even if we became extinct, it makes no difference because another species will simply replace ours, if we consumed all other species, it equally makes no difference. Evolution isn't at all interested in the preservation nor the annihilation of human beings not to talk of good and evil.

1) First bold; but where I disagree is where you suggest that evolution birthed our morality

If we are a result of evolution, how is it then that you can disagree that some of our morality came from an evolutionary process?
You forget that there is also social evolution. Certain animals are social animals that have evolved certain group mentality in which they share certain values and instincts to protect their colony or species. These can be seen in ants, monkeys and humans.

Your ignorance about certain scientific knowledge is not surprising. Pastor AIO has a thread about this. I will look for it and post it later.



2) Second bold; There is no such thing as a better or worse when it comes to evolution

Another comment from ignorance
So, have rats and hunting dogs evolved a better sense of smell than humans?


3) Third bold; Evolution isn't at all interested in the preservation nor the annihilation of human beings not to talk of good and evil.

Ignorance and a misstatement of my position.

There are instincts that animals evolve with. The one basic natural instinct in most if not all living things is to survive. Therefore, to a living thing such as a human, things directly hindering their survival is "evil".

Mr_Anony:
At best, all you have done here is reply with the logiboy equivalent of "Goddidit" i.e. "we evolved that way" which when you look at it is not much different from "God made us that way". You score no points here.

What? You are talking nonsense. I have explained how evolution gives us a prepackaged sense of morality. This is not a god of the gaps argument but a factual stance on basic sociological and evolutionary biological studies.

We come prepackaged with a sense of morality due to some eveolutionary instincts. Survival is one of those instincts. However, evolution doesnt fully explain our morality. I am not even basing everything on evolution, so, your "goddidit" claim fails. There is also logical source where we weigh the benefits of a certain issue. There is also a societal source where we use interactions with others to understand and agree on certain issue.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, but then logic in itself like atheism has nothing to do with morality. You score no points here as well.

Ignorant statement. Logic is one of our basic sources for morality.

Simple question, how do you know that taking snuff tobacco is bad? There is nothing in christian theology that will tell you that it is bad.

It doesnt kill or shorten your life. But a logical weighing of the pros and cons will tell you that while it gives a sweet felling to the user, it can damage your teeth or give you a cough or mess up your nostrils.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, so you are much more than an atheist, you are a human being. So what? What is so special about being human anyway? What gives a human being value? Before you can even begin to talk about me "reducing your being" you must define how your being came to have value in the first place.

Quite an irrelevant question.

1) I never said that I was special

2) I am a human being before an atheist. So to reduce my morality to an atheist worldview is ignorant of the fact that as a human I have a morality already and thus, reducing my humanity or being to atheims

Mr_Anony:
The same goes for our talk on the morality of slavery. before you can begin to the discuss the "equality" of human beings, and why slavery is wrong, you must first define their value. . . .and citing evolution does not help you at all because as far as evolution is concerned, there is nothing special about humans; you are not more important than a lizard, or a rat, or a bacteria cell or a beanstalk or any other organism trying to survive. Your argument fails terribly.

This claim has been debunked above

Mr_Anony:
This comment is evidence that you really don't read before you start typing. If you had been a tiny little bit more observant, you would have noticed that I posted your comment in full and all you really did was highlight another part of it, nonetheless, the comment still holds true that atheism has nothing to say about morality. To discuss morality at all, you must argue as something else other than an atheist.

How the hell can you claim that I am the one that doesnt read before typing and then go on to say that I discussed morality only as an atheist?

I mentioned evolutionary and logical sources of morality. Is that morality as an atheist or morality as a humans being that applies to all humans?

I never discussed morality as an atheist issue, rather as a construct of humanity (human evolution) and logic.


Please think before you type

Mr_Anony:
Interesting video, from what I see, the fact that God exists has been established as fact. The only problem now is that there were multiple perceptions of Him.

For instance, four people can watch a football match and have four entirely different opinions of the match having heated arguments about it even after watching the replays over and over again. This is not in anyway "proof" that the match didn't happen.

If I say cyrexx exists because he types on Nairaland. The only way to truly refute that argument is to prove that he doesn't type on Nairaland. It is irrelevant if two people disagree on whether cyrexx lives in sokoto or kafanchan or if cyrexx is French or Japanese.
The point still remains that cyrexx exists. An argument over the details cyrexx's nature is entirely different from an argument over whether he exists or not.

Unfortunately, the video portrays a classic example of a strawman argument.

The moment you start pondering the true nature of God, you have moved far away from atheism. The video shows a desperate attempt to cling on to the denial of God's existence and this raises the question.......perhaps you are not as open minded as you would have us believe?

Fail.


The video shows the fallacy of believing in any creator and omnipotent god. It shows that a such a god can not exist due to

[size=14pt]If A has the same characteristics as B

but B doesnt exist,

doesnt that mean that A also doesnt exist as well?
[/size]


If you claim that your god is the one true god and creator of the earth and call him "A"

then another person claims the same thing only that his god is named "B".


For you to claim that B is a false and not existent god is to also claim that your own god is false and your statement a lie

Mr_Anony:
Interesting video, from what I see, the fact that God exists has been established as fact. The only problem now is that there were multiple perceptions of Him.

For instance, four people can watch a football match and have four entirely different opinions of the match having heated arguments about it even after watching the replays over and over again. This is not in anyway "proof" that the match didn't happen.

If I say cyrexx exists because he types on Nairaland. The only way to truly refute that argument is to prove that he doesn't type on Nairaland. It is irrelevant if two people disagree on whether cyrexx lives in sokoto or kafanchan or if cyrexx is French or Japanese.
The point still remains that cyrexx exists. An argument over the details cyrexx's nature is entirely different from an argument over whether he exists or not.

Unfortunately, the video portrays a classic example of a strawman argument.

The moment you start pondering the true nature of God, you have moved far away from atheism. The video shows a desperate attempt to cling on to the denial of God's existence and this raises the question.......perhaps you are not as open minded as you would have us believe?

relax, dude, and save your energy for another time. the video is not meant to prove that god does not exist. it aims to show that you cant use a fine-tuned universe/cosmological argument to prove the christian deity as the creator. any open-minded person without religious baggage would see that. the moment you attribute this to your god, other religions can equally attribute it to their gods and i'm sure you are an atheist as far as all other gods are concerned. religious people are very skillful at closing their mind to anything that goes against their religion, and you are not an exception

and then, anony, what gave you the idea that i pondered on the nature of god? you love to falsely project false ideas on people. its both fallacious and annoying, the kind of anonyism you have been pulling. the other time you were saying i'm under guilt. but i know you would start asking me to give you basis why this is fallacious and annoying and all that. but let me just state the fact that the only thing i ever considered is religions and their claims, not their God(s). get that straight and pls stop twisting my words and projecting what is false on me. its anonying


finally, you should know that open-minded is not the same as gullibility, it is the ability to acknowledge that you could be wrong and humbling yourself to learn from people with different worldview. but you christians hold that "let god be true and everyman a liar" and you would never consider any fact that goes against your religious doctrine/dogma and you still have the effrontery to say some people are not open-minded.

hmmmmm

cyrexx:


relax, dude, and save your energy for another time. the video is not meant to prove that god does not exist. it aims to show that you cant use a fine-tuned universe/cosmological argument to prove the christian deity as the creator. any open-minded person without religious baggage would see that. the moment you attribute this your god, other religions can equally attribute it to their gods and i'm sure you are an atheist as far as all other gods are concerned. religious people are very skillful at closing their mind to anything that goes against their religion, and you are not an exception

Interestingly, the cosmological argument is not used to prove a particular deity but to give a reason why God must exist. The next argument that follows after establishing that God exists is to provide an argument to ascertain who God is.
For instance when we see a car, we establish that the car has a designer. That fact is established even if we disagree on which man designed the car. Arguing over who exactly designed the car is an entirely separate argument and does not in any way negate the fact that the car has a designer

and then, anony, what gave you the idea that i pondered on the nature of god? you love to falsely project false ideas on people. its both fallacious and annoying, the kind of anonyism you have been pulling. the other time you were saying i'm under guilt. but i know you would start asking me to give you basis why this is fallacious and annoying and all that. but let me just state that the fact that the only thing i ever considered is religions and their claims, not their gods. get that straight and pls stop twisting my words and projecting what is false on me. its anonying

Well, if you have not pondered the nature of God, then why show us a video that features an argument pondering the nature of God. Ok my bad, it was the video doing the pondering and not you.

finally, you should know that open-minded is not the same as gullibility, it is the ability to acknowledge that you could be wrong and humbling yourself to learn from people with different worldview. but you christians hold that "let god be true and everyman a liar" and you would never consider any fact that goes against your religious doctrine/dogma and you still have the effrontery to say some people are not open-minded.

hmmmmm

In the same way I agree that there is a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility. It will take a very gullible person to swallow the lie that something can come from nothing.

Logicboy03:


Fail.


The video shows the fallacy of believing in any creator and omnipotent god. It shows that a such a god can not exist due to

[size=14pt]If A has the same characteristics as B

but B doesnt exist,

doesnt that mean that A also doesnt exist as well?
[/size]


If you claim that your god is the one true god and creator of the earth and call him "A"

then another person claims the same thing only that his god is named "B".


For you to claim that B is a false and not existent god is to also claim that your own god is false and your statement a lie

Funny enough in this scenario, A does not have all the same characteristics as B. you have no point

Mr_Anony:
Interestingly, the cosmological argument is not used to prove a particular deity but to give a reason why God must exist. The next argument that follows after establishing that God exists is to provide an argument to ascertain who God is.
For instance when we see a car, we establish that the car has a designer. That fact is established even if we disagree on which man designed the car. Arguing over who exactly designed the car is an entirely separate argument and does not in any way negate the fact that the car has a designer

okay, so who is the designer?

Mr_Anony:
Well, if you have not pondered the nature of God, then why show us a video that features an argument pondering the nature of God. Ok my bad, it was the video doing the pondering and not you.

no probs

Mr_Anony:
In the same way I agree that there is a difference between open-mindedness and gullibility. It will take a very gullible person to swallow the lie that something can come from nothing.

LOL,
you mean the belief that yahweh can come from nothing? its not just gullibility but dumbest gullibility of all gullibilities

Mr_Anony:
Funny enough in this scenario, A does not have all the same characteristics as B. you have no point

Really?


We are talking about God from a cosmological point of view- which has certain characteristics only

Uncaused cause
creator
sentient being



All of which are claimed by both christianity, islam and many forms of paganism. From a cosmological argument, all your gods are the same

It's over Anony.

I see Anony's back. Welcome, sir. Missed ya, sir..

Just one question. Why do you consider God good?
If you say good is God, then what then is God?

Logicboy03:

1) First bold; but where I disagree is where you suggest that evolution birthed our morality

If we are a result of evolution, how is it then that you can disagree that some of our morality came from an evolutionary process?
You forget that there is also social evolution. Certain animals are social animals that have evolved certain group mentality in which they share certain values and instincts to protect their colony or species. These can be seen in ants, monkeys and humans.

Your ignorance about certain scientific knowledge is not surprising. Pastor AIO has a thread about this. I will look for it and post it later.

What exactly do you mean when you say "some of our morality"

Now to answer your question: I think you have elevated evolution to a status it does not have by giving it causal properties. Evolution is an impersonal process not an entity with an aim. It is a bit like if I were to ask "how come you have a good voice?" and your response is "growing". Growth did not give you your voice. Your vocal talent could only have come from a personal input i.e. someone teaching you to sing or you practicing by trial and error. Growth was simply an impersonal process happening alongside, it had nothing to do with your singing voice.

2) Second bold; There is no such thing as a better or worse when it comes to evolution

Another comment from ignorance
So, have rats and hunting dogs evolved a better sense of smell than humans?

Poor understanding you have there:This is just like arguing whether blonde is better than brunette. What exactly is a "better sense of smell" I submit to you that the degree of smell is only as important to the organism as what the organism uses it for. There is no better or worse evolution.

3) Third bold; Evolution isn't at all interested in the preservation nor the annihilation of human beings not to talk of good and evil.

Ignorance and a misstatement of my position.

There are instincts that animals evolve with. The one basic natural instinct in most if not all living things is to survive. Therefore, to a living thing such as a human, things directly hindering their survival is "evil".

I agree that survival is the key for evolution but then our morality is not based on survival. Acts of altruism usually imply that we give up our survival for that of another human being and sometimes even for other species. This goes contrary to what morality would have been if it was based on survival.

By your definition of evil, altruism and self-sacrifice would be the highest evil in your book while greed, selfishness and the what's-in-it-for-me mentality would be the greatest good.

What? You are talking nonsense. I have explained how evolution gives us a prepackaged sense of morality. This is not a god of the gaps argument but a factual stance on basic sociological and evolutionary biological studies.

We come prepackaged with a sense of morality due to some eveolutionary instincts. Survival is one of those instincts. However, evolution doesnt fully explain our morality. I am not even basing everything on evolution, so, your "goddidit" claim fails. There is also logical source where we weigh the benefits of a certain issue. There is also a societal source where we use interactions with others to understand and agree on certain issue.

Yawn...impersonal processes don't prepackage things. Next attempt please.

Ignorant statement. Logic is one of our basic sources for morality.

Simple question, how do you know that taking snuff tobacco is bad? There is nothing in christian theology that will tell you that it is bad.

It doesnt kill or shorten your life. But a logical weighing of the pros and cons will tell you that while it gives a sweet felling to the user, it can damage your teeth or give you a cough or mess up your nostrils.

This tells me that you don't know what logic is. Logic is more or less how valid an argument is and nothing more. It has nothing to do with good and evil.

You snuff tobacco argument is an argument of survival i.e. if you want your teeth and nostrils to survive, then don't take snuff
The argument: "If you want to damage your teeth and nostrils, take snuff" is an equally logical argument. They only have different motivations.

Quite an irrelevant question.

1) I never said that I was special

2) I am a human being before an atheist. So to reduce my morality to an atheist worldview is ignorant of the fact that as a human I have a morality already and thus, reducing my humanity or being to atheims

This claim has been debunked above

How the hell can you claim that I am the one that doesnt read before typing and then go on to say that I discussed morality only as an atheist?

I mentioned evolutionary and logical sources of morality. Is that morality as an atheist or morality as a humans being that applies to all humans?

I never discussed morality as an atheist issue, rather as a construct of humanity (human evolution) and logic.

As I said earlier, it is very clear to me that you have comprehension issues. If you really didn't understand the argument I was making then that's too bad. I really can't help you

cyrexx:

okay, so who is the designer?

My point exactly, do you accept that there is a designer in the first place?

no probs

LOL,
you mean the belief that yahweh can come from nothing? its not just gullibility but dumbest gullibility of all gullibilities

The premise is that God is uncaused. If you have a problem with uncaused things then that's just too bad.

Logicboy03:



Really?


We are talking about God from a cosmological point of view- which has certain characteristics only

Uncaused cause
creator
sentient being



All of which are claimed by both christianity, islam and many forms of paganism. From a cosmological argument, all your gods are the same

But then the cosmological argument is not out to define a particular deity but to give you an insight into the concept of God much like defining what a car is before going into the particular characteristics of a mercedes and volvo.

musKeeto: I see Anony's back. Welcome, sir. Missed ya, sir..

Just one question. Why do you consider God good?
If you say good is God, then what then is God?

Lol, thanks man, how you dey.

Why is God good? is like asking why is man an abstract thinker?
That is just God's nature and no good is not God in the same way abstract thinking is not man

Mr_Anony:
My point exactly, do you accept that there is a designer in the first place?

dont answer my question with another question. you believed the earth was designed, now tell me who is the designer and if you cant, just hold your peace. no need to question the question.

The premise is that God is uncaused. If you have a problem with uncaused things then that's just too bad.

LOL again, this time ROTFLMAO

if you have a problem with uncaused universe, it just too too bad.

N.B. i hope you can wrap your religious head around the fact that something having a beginning DOES NOT IMPLY that it was caused by a deity or anything.

Strategy for arguing with atheists, none, simply present the TRUTH.

Present the gospel to them , if they reject it, leave them alone.

Humans are created with will power , you cannot by any means force atheists to accept what in their opinion is fallacy, though in truth the existence of GOD is fact !!

Time will tell who is wrong.

Mr_Anony:
But then the cosmological argument is not out to define a particular deity but to give you an insight into the concept of God much like defining what a car is before going into the particular characteristics of a mercedes and volvo.

Thank you! You just gave me an idea.


Now lets say gods are like cars

Yaweh- Mercedes

Allah- Volvo

Pink Unicorn- Toyota


In an aerodynamics class, all cars are the same; either the design of the car is aerodynamic or not. It doesnt matter if your car is a volvo or prosche, it must be properly streamlined


Just as in cosmological argument, either your god is a sentient creator or not. It doesnt matter if he is said to give freewill or not

Mr_Anony:

The premise is that God is uncaused.

this premise is wrong.

because it can be proven that your God, as well all other religions' Gods, was caused by human imaginations for many reasons e.g. in order to explain life's mysteries.

but i dont expect you to understand this or acccept it if you understand it, not if you are still carrying your religious baggage. i know you've got a lot invested in your religion that accepting some contradicting facts may be impossible.

no problem

Mr_Anony:
What exactly do you mean when you say "some of our morality"

Some of our morality also comes from logic. We weigh certain objective issues on a scale of pros and cons.

Mr_Anony:
Now to answer your question: I think you have elevated evolution to a status it does not have by giving it causal properties. Evolution is an impersonal process not an entity with an aim. It is a bit like if I were to ask "how come you have a good voice?" and your response is "growing". Growth did not give you your voice. Your vocal talent could only have come from a personal input i.e. someone teaching you to sing or you practicing by trial and error. Growth was simply an impersonal process happening alongside, it had nothing to do with your singing voice.

Evolution does have causal properties. It is the reason why you are immune to many bacteria naturally as a human.

Your example is a non sequitur to my agrument. Evolution is a factor of adaption. We adapt to our environment and change. With such adaptation for survival, we are forced to have some basic instincts (some are moral codes) to ensure our survival.

To even take up your example, without evolving voice boxes and speaking abilities would we be able to sing at all? Assuming one had inherited certain genes that made him or her susceptible to throat diseases, how would one be able to sing if on gets the disease? There is a throat cancer gene

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Congenital-Throat-Problems.htm
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2012/03March/New-throat-cancer-gene-uncovered.aspx

Mr_Anony:
Poor understanding you have there:This is just like arguing whether blonde is better than brunette. What exactly is a "better sense of smell" I submit to you that the degree of smell is only as important to the organism as what the organism uses it for. There is no better or worse evolution.

Honestly, you are grasping at straws here. You mention degree of smell and then you further says that a better sense of smell is nonsense?

Explain why we have dogs bred for hunting and also sniffing drugs if a better sense of smell doesnt exist or is useless?


Blonde and brunette is quite a non sequitur and doesnt apply here. They are not direct functional properties to our survival. Imagne if you couldnt smell and you had a gas leakage.............

Mr_Anony:
I agree that survival is the key for evolution but then our morality is not based on survival. Acts of altruism usually imply that we give up our survival for that of another human being and sometimes even for other species. This goes contrary to what morality would have been if it was based on survival.


By your definition of evil, altruism and self-sacrifice would be the highest evil in your book while greed, selfishness and the what's-in-it-for-me mentality would be the greatest good.

Some morality is based on our need for survival. A woman would abort a baby if her survival was in jeopardy. Classic example.

Ants die in defence of their queen for their species to live on. Survival of the species

Altruism existed before christianity many people learnt socially that others are happy when they receive unconditional love.

Mr_Anony:
Yawn...impersonal processes don't prepackage things. Next attempt please.

Nonsensical statement. The above quote makes no sense

Mr_Anony:
This tells me that you don't know what logic is. Logic is more or less how valid an argument is and nothing more. It has nothing to do with good and evil.

You snuff tobacco argument is an argument of survival i.e. if you want your teeth and nostrils to survive, then don't take snuff
The argument: "If you want to damage your teeth and nostrils, take snuff" is an equally logical argument. They only have different motivations.

Fail. Big fail

First of all, snuff tobacco (when licked around recreationally) only makes your teeth brown and when sniffed, only makes your nostrils constanly irritated and so the sniffing and puffing.

This has nothing to do with survival as many people from my village live to a hundred years with some of these side effects.

Mr_Anony:
As I said earlier, it is very clear to me that you have comprehension issues. If you really didn't understand the argument I was making then that's too bad. I really can't help you

Lol,,,,as usual, you cant state what I misunderstood, just claim nonsense and run away

cyrexx:

dont answer my question with another question. you believed the earth was designed, now tell me who is the designer and if you cant, just hold your peace. no need to question the question.

I am sorry my friend, I cannot answer who is the designer if you don't agree that it is designed in the first place.

LOL again, this time ROTFLMAO

if you have a problem with uncaused universe, it just too too bad.

N.B. i hope you can wrap your religious head around the fact that something having a beginning DOES NOT IMPLY that it was caused by a deity or anything.

Lol, so you think the universe is uncaused....I hear you.

Also, you might as well say that something is eaten doesn't mean that anything ate it or that something is killed doesn't mean that anything killed it or that something is written doesn't mean that anything wrote it. Good for you.

Logicboy03:

Evolution does have causal properties. It is the reason why you are immune to many bacteria naturally as a human.

Your example is a non sequitur to my agrument. Evolution is a factor of adaption. We adapt to our environment and change. With such adaptation for survival, we are forced to have some basic instincts (some are moral codes) to ensure our survival.

To even take up your example, without evolving voice boxes and speaking abilities would we be able to sing at all? Assuming one had inherited certain genes that made him or her susceptible to throat diseases, how would one be able to sing if on gets the disease? There is a throat cancer gene

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Congenital-Throat-Problems.htm
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/newsevents/news/newsrecords/2012/03March/New-throat-cancer-gene-uncovered.aspx

Lol so evolution now has causal properties lol. I thought evolution was actually describing the process of change and was not the agent of change itself. Well, why am I even arguing with your ignorance? You need to go get schooled up mate.

Honestly, you are grasping at straws here. You mention degree of smell and then you further says that a better sense of smell is nonsense?

Explain why we have dogs bred for hunting and also sniffing drugs if a better sense of smell doesnt exist or is useless?


Blonde and brunette is quite a non sequitur and doesnt apply here. They are not direct functional properties to our survival. Imagne if you couldnt smell and you had a gas leakage.............

Lol, I can also mention "degree of height". It doesn't make a short person better or worse evolved than a tall person. Assuming you needed to join the basketball team.....

Some morality is based on our need for survival. A woman would abort a baby if her survival was in jeopardy. Classic example.

Ants die in defence of their queen for their species to live on. Survival of the species

Altruism existed before christianity many people learnt socially that others are happy when they receive unconditional love.

Who is talking about Christianity here? The question is how does the dying for someone else or dying for an idea believe fit into a morality based on survival?

Nonsensical statement. The above quote makes no sense
Fail. Big fail

First of all, snuff tobacco (when licked around recreationally) only makes your teeth brown and when sniffed, only makes your nostrils constanly irritated and so the sniffing and puffing.

This has nothing to do with survival as many people from my village live to a hundred years with some of these side effects.

Lol,,,,as usual, you cant state what I misunderstood, just claim nonsense and run away

If I remember correctly, I talked about the survival of the teeth and nostrils when talking about snuff and not people's lifespan but then your comprehension ability being what it is, I didn't really expect you to follow the argument.
It is just sad that you have a poor capacity to grasp stuff and even worse is that you don't realize it. You are such a bore.

Mr_Anony:
My point exactly, do you accept that there is a designer in the first place?




The premise is that God is uncaused. If you have a problem with uncaused things then that's just too bad.

in as much as i would have loved to respond to all your points,i have a lot of work on mydesk so i'd condense my responses into this post.oga,you claim yahweh is a grand designer,what did he design?the earth?diehard says the fact that earth is well positioned from the sun to prevent overheat and extreme coolness is evidence that god exists.then i ask,of 9 planets,only one supports life that we know of.what the heck was the grand designer's intention inj creating the others?whats the purpose for jupiter having 12 moons?

you guys claim god always has a reason for everything,then i ask.....why the heck did he create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden?who was in need of the fruits from that tree?we know for a fact adam wasnt supposed to touch it.was it yahweh himself that needed the fruit?was it the angels?we also know there was a tree of life in the garden which supposedly gave everlasting life.why did yahweh create that tree?who needed the fruit?

i simply cant understand enlightened folks accept such fallacies hook line and sinker.

what exactly do you mean by god is uncaused?

diehard: No one is born an atheist. People choose to become atheists as much as they choose to become Christians. And no matter how strenuously some may try to deny it, atheism is a belief system. It requires faith that God does not exist.

When dialoguing with atheists, it is helpful to point out the logical problems inherent in their belief system. If you succeed in showing an atheist the natural outcome of some of his (or her) main claims and arguments, you are in a much better position to share the gospel with him. Let us consider two prime examples here.

(1) "There is no God." Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time - with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe - can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.
. . . .

False. One doesn't need to know everything to know that a certain God doesn't exist. One can apply reasoning to rule out logically incoherent Gods.

diehard:
(2) "I don't believe in God because there is so much evil in the world." Many atheists consider the problem of evil an airtight proof that God does not exist. They often say something like: "I know there is no God because if He existed, He never would have let Hitler murder six million Jews."

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: "Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?" The atheist may hedge and say: "I just know that some things are evil. It's obvious." Don't accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.

After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

This is a bad argument. One doesn't need a God to know that killing a girl for going to school is evil, to know that genocide is evil, to know that child sacrifice is evil.

diehard:
The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of "absolutely good." If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

Which God does this? Actually there is a basis of judging the crimes of Hitler. There are laws against genocide, there's the fact that he was causing suffering for terrible reasons.

diehard:
At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn't He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil, but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God's only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil.

If the atheist responds that it shouldn't take all of human history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: "Ok. Let's do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet - present company included - would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?"

Yes it would be preferable to me. But, this is based on the idea that the mere existence of humans causes evil. This to me means that God has no idea of how to actually create humans that only do good. If it is the God of Christianity, then there shouldn't be a Heaven since those people there will also perform evil acts.

diehard:
The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

So the Heaven proposed by the Christian is simply full of robots.

diehard:
If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don't expect much of an answer.

The attributes you listed are already self contradictory.

diehard:
Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist's belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atheism.html

Good luck with that.

Delafruita:
in as much as i would have loved to respond to all your points,i have a lot of work on mydesk so i'd condense my responses into this post.oga,you claim yahweh is a grand designer,what did he design?the earth?diehard says the fact that earth is well positioned from the sun to prevent overheat and extreme coolness is evidence that god exists.then i ask,of 9 planets,only one supports life that we know of.what the heck was the grand designer's intention inj creating the others?whats the purpose for jupiter having 12 moons?

you guys claim god always has a reason for everything,then i ask.....why the heck did he create a tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden?who was in need of the fruits from that tree?we know for a fact adam wasnt supposed to touch it.was it yahweh himself that needed the fruit?was it the angels?we also know there was a tree of life in the garden which supposedly gave everlasting life.why did yahweh create that tree?who needed the fruit?

i simply cant understand enlightened folks accept such fallacies hook line and sinker.

what exactly do you mean by god is uncaused?

My friend, when we observe order, we deduce that there must be an orderer. Not knowing why he ordered it a certain way does not take anything away from the fact that the orderer exists.
I'll give you a parallel. When we observe a murder, we deduce a murderer. Not knowing why the murderer used 12 bullets to the head instead of 1 or 5 or 3 does not take anything away from the fact that the murderer exists.

Finally, God is uncaused simply means that God is uncaused i.e. He is eternal and didn't come into existence at a point in time.