Astreja Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 3 hours ago, AustinAustin said: My father was not a churchgoer, and never spoke of religion. He may have been an atheist (but as I said, he never spoke of religion). My mother did go to church a few times. I never saw her pray. I'm not sure what my brother believes, because it apparently isn't important enough to him that he ever speaks about it. When both of us were living at home I never saw him go to church, although he may attended church services while working on Cubs / Boy Scouts merit badges. (I had to do something similar when I was in Girl Guides.) Like my dad, he's a professional scientist. I consider myself very, very fortunate to have been brought up in a non-religious home, and to have had the opportunity to read the Bible on my own without some deluded adult telling me that it was all true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 1 hour ago, AustinAustin said: ... Logic's existence is proof of God's Existence. ... Just not in any way you can demonstrate. A mere assertion is not evidence. 1 hour ago, AustinAustin said: ... Logic cannot be made of anything or by anything in the Universe yet still exists. Only God. Many surmise that logic is indeed a human invention, to assist with rational thinking. Put another way, without humans (or other sentient species capable of employing logic) logic would not exist. Leaving all that aside, I must point out that your claims and statement demonstrate a lack of logic. Instead, you use illogic and irrational thinking (e.g., informal logical fallacies) when you write. I can only suggest you research this area for a time to understand how logic works and how to use it in your own thinking. Study hard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 47 minutes ago, TABA said: It opens the door to the idea that the universe is governed by some non-material phenomena. But you make a huge leap from there to asserting that therefore the God of the Bible exists. It also opens the door to the Existence of God. It's not just that the immaterial exists, but for an absolute standard to exist, such can exist only by design. God is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 This one is already repeating himself. I suspect he will soon run out of material. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 Austin, Forgive me for repeating myself here, but: Where is there proof of the existence of any human spirit? Where is there proof of any supreme being, angel, or demon? Why would we believe in the existence of any human spirit, except that it makes us feel good to believe it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 God is the King, you don't summon the King. If you didn't believe in POTUS, and had the same standard, what are the chances POTUS would come talk to you?... God has given you ample proof. The logic example is proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 Just now, alreadyGone said: Austin, Forgive me for repeating myself here, but: Where is there proof of the existence of any human spirit? Where is there proof of any supreme being, angel, or demon? Why would we believe in the existence of any human spirit, except that it makes us feel good to believe it? If God is real, these questions fall into place. Please check out the logic example I've shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 11 minutes ago, sdelsolray said: Just not in any way you can demonstrate. A mere assertion is not evidence. Many surmise that logic is indeed a human invention, to assist with rational thinking. Put another way, without humans (or other sentient species capable of employing logic) logic would not exist. Leaving all that aside, I must point out that your claims and statement demonstrate a lack of logic. Instead, you use illogic and irrational thinking (e.g., informal logical fallacies) when you write. I can only suggest you research this area for a time to understand how logic works and how to use it in your own thinking. Study hard. If it were true that logic's existence were dependent upon humanity, then as soon as we were gone, logic would also be gone. However, if humanity were gone, this modus ponens would still be logical, proving your idea wrong, respectfully. Logic cannot exist without God. God is real, and so is Hell. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: It's not just that the immaterial exists, but for an absolute standard to exist, such can exist only by design. God is real. But is there an absolute standard? And why is it important? Humans do fine with relative standards. The dumbass deity in the Bible is pretty weak on enforcing the standards attributed to it in the Bible - you have the nonsense about Jesus and substitutionary atonement, and that other nonsense about Original Sin, and a passage here that says that children shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their forebears, and another passage there that says there'll be punishment to the seventh generation. What a fucking mess - nothing absolute about that at all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 Im sorry, my modus ponens file size is too large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: God is the King, you don't summon the King. Well, I didn't vote for 'im! I told you quite clearly that my evidentiary standard is not negotiable. I meant that. You say that your god won't convince me, and you yourself can't convince me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: If God is real, these questions fall into place. Please check out the logic example I've shared. That is not an answer to the question I asked. "If God is real.." presupposes the existence of a spirit being. Do you have an answer to the question? Why would I believe in a God if I see no reason to believe in anything that can be called a spirit? Is there such thing as a human spirit? How would you know? Who has seen it? What attributes define a human spirit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 Just now, alreadyGone said: Is there such thing as a human spirit? How would you know? Who has seen it? What attributes define a human spirit? The "human spirit" can't be consciousness - that regularly shuts down when we're in dreamless sleep (which also suggests that consciousness after brain death is very, very unlikely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 1 minute ago, Astreja said: Well, I didn't vote for 'im! ... I see what you did there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 7, 2021 Super Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2021 10 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: Im sorry, my modus ponens file size is too large. That's what she said. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 23 minutes ago, sdelsolray said: This one is already repeating himself. I suspect he will soon run out of material. Gee, ya think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 7, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2021 23 hours ago, AustinAustin said: Why should there be an absolute standard of reasoning if everything is simply “molecules in motion”? Most atheists have a materialistic outlook—meaning they believe that everything that exists is material, or explained by material processes. But laws of logic are not material! If atheistic materialism is true, then there could be no laws of logic, since they are immaterial. Thus, logical reasoning would be impossible! if atheism were true, the atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic because such things would not be meaningful. This is where you begin with a faulty premise. The entire thing is faulty and represents the informal logical fallacy of a straw man. It's not material as much as it's natural. Most atheists think that there are NATURAL explanations and there's no need to introduce SUPER NATURAL assertions. There are both materialistic and not materialistic natural explanation. For instance, if awareness or consciousness is ever proven fundamental (the primacy of consciousness), it illustrates natural explanations for had previously been mistaken as supernatural in our ignorant past. Religion, and theism specifically, belongs to our ignorant past as a species. The bronze age more specifically. Not an enlightened period. And so it shouldn't be all too surprising to watch nearly every assertion from that period fall flat upon further investigation. 23 hours ago, AustinAustin said: How could there be laws at all without a lawgiver? Laws of logic owe their existence to the biblical God. Yet they are required to reason rationally, to prove things. So the biblical God must exist in order for reasoning to be possible. Therefore, the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him we couldn’t prove anything at all! The existence of the biblical God is the prerequisite for knowledge and rationality. Your first set of assertions are demonstrably false. What that means is that you put a false claim out as your initial building block. And then attempt to add more blocks on top of it. Is the first assertion false but the second assertion right? No, they're both equally incorrect. There's no reason to assert a supernatural god in the first place, let along evidence for the existence of one. It has only evidence of human beings creating mythology and theistic beliefs going for it. There is ample evidence that people made these concepts up and then evolved the concepts through generations over time. But there isn't, nor has there ever been, evidence for the existence of a supernatural god - let alone YHWH of the biblical tradition. What about laws? The only evidence for the existence of laws comes from the very same evidence for the existence of god beliefs - human beings created both concepts. Now as already pointed out to you, god runs contrary or opposite of where the laws of logic lead. That's why philosophy has never been able to prove the existence of god through philosophy. For thousands of years of people trying hard to use philosophy to prove the existence of god, it's never to this date been accomplished. You're wrong, then wrong again. And you'll be wrong over and over until you figure out how to fix your initial faulty premise. We can visit the book of Genesis as well and take a look at how logical or illogical IT is. Will you be surprised to learn that it's horribly illogical all the way through??? 1) We have thread about the fact that science has never proven a fixed origin of the universe, contrary to WLC's false claims: 2) What about the book of Genesis? It's demonstrably false. See for yourself: Not only is Genesis illogical, it's demonstrably false in these specific and impossible to overcome ways. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 Josh, Very well said. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 35 minutes ago, Astreja said: Well, I didn't vote for 'im! I told you quite clearly that my evidentiary standard is not negotiable. I meant that. You say that your god won't convince me, and you yourself can't convince me. If you did speak with God face to face, wouldn't you later wonder if you hallucinated?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 35 minutes ago, alreadyGone said: That is not an answer to the question I asked. "If God is real.." presupposes the existence of a spirit being. Do you have an answer to the question? Why would I believe in a God if I see no reason to believe in anything that can be called a spirit? Is there such thing as a human spirit? How would you know? Who has seen it? What attributes define a human spirit? Friend, the logic example is proof of God, please, please check it out. Your family may be saved by your accepting Jesus Christ as God and Savior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AustinAustin Posted November 7, 2021 Author Share Posted November 7, 2021 18 minutes ago, Joshpantera said: This is where you begin with a faulty premise. The entire thing is faulty and represents the informal logical fallacy of a straw man. It's not material as much as it's natural. Most atheists think that there are NATURAL explanations and there's no need to introduce SUPER NATURAL assertions. There are both materialistic and not materialistic natural explanation. For instance, if awareness or consciousness is ever proven fundamental (the primacy of consciousness), it illustrates natural explanations for had previously been mistaken as supernatural in our ignorant past. Religion, and theism specifically, belongs to our ignorant past as a species. The bronze age more specifically. Not an enlightened period. And so it shouldn't be all too surprising to watch nearly every assertion from that period fall flat upon further investigation. Your first set of assertions are demonstrably false. What that means is that you put a false claim out as your initial building block. And then attempt to add more blocks on top of it. Is the first assertion false but the second assertion right? No, they're both equally incorrect. There's no reason to assert a supernatural god in the first place, let along evidence for the existence of one. It has only evidence of human beings creating mythology and theistic beliefs going for it. There is ample evidence that people made these concepts up and then evolved the concepts through generations over time. But there isn't, nor has there ever been, evidence for the existence of a supernatural god - let alone YHWH of the biblical tradition. What about laws? The only evidence for the existence of laws comes from the very same evidence for the existence of god beliefs - human beings created both concepts. Now as already pointed out to you, god runs contrary or opposite of where the laws of logic lead. That's why philosophy has never been able to prove the existence of god through philosophy. For thousands of years of people trying hard to use philosophy to prove the existence of god, it's never to this date been accomplished. You're wrong, then wrong again. And you'll be wrong over and over until you figure out how to fix your initial faulty premise. We can visit the book of Genesis as well and take a look at how logical or illogical IT is. Will you be surprised to learn that it's horribly illogical all the way through??? 1) We have thread about the fact that science has never proven a fixed origin of the universe, contrary to WLC's false claims: 2) What about the book of Genesis? It's demonstrably false. See for yourself: Not only is Genesis illogical, it's demonstrably false in these specific and impossible to overcome ways. I'm sorry, please pick one topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 7, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: Friend, the logic example is proof of God, please, please check it out. Your family may be saved by your accepting Jesus Christ as God and Savior. Again, you haven't even gotten to anything logical yet, Austin. You've begun with an illogical assertion and then dug your heels in the sand without proving your initial, faulty assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alreadyGone Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: Friend, the logic example is proof of God, please, please check it out. Your family may be saved by your accepting Jesus Christ as God and Savior. So you have no answer. Further, you aren't honest enough to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 6 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: If you did speak with God face to face, wouldn't you later wonder if you hallucinated?... Perhaps -- but it's literally the only thing that has even a slight chance of convincing me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Joshpantera Posted November 7, 2021 Moderator Share Posted November 7, 2021 16 minutes ago, AustinAustin said: I'm sorry, please pick one topic. You're sorry about what? Your existence here depends on people like me. I tell you how it is, you don't tell me. I've told you what it is you have to do. Prove your initial assertions. I've given you reading material to take in and try and come back with something more intelligent. What you have right now is incredibly poor minded. Both about the existence of god and the truth of the bible. Both of which I've left links for you to read and try and wrap your mind around. If you blather on and on without proving your claims, we'll end it at some point after you've lapped yourself with circular logic and reasoning. Your example of poor logic will left up as an example of poor thinking and judgement. Along with all of the refutation of your faulty premise and continued unproven claims. But you'll be gone with the wind because we have no reason to allow apologists to lap themselves with circular reasoning forever. Look at the history in this forum. One after the next example of failed apologetic's. And the apologists serving as primary examples of how not to think and what constitutes poorly formed theistic arguments. You'll join their ranks if you don't get with the program and prove your points. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts